<html>
<body>
Milton is correct in that this is an issue that is both critical to the
transition and not addressed by the CWG, and I believe not addressable
solely by the CWG. <br><br>
There are a two obvious possible ways the issue can be
addressed:<br><br>
1. The NTIA amends the Cooperative Agreement to require Verisign to
publish changes submitted to it by IANA. Perhaps IANA would have to be
added as a signatory to that agreement.<br><br>
2. The NTIA cancels the Cooperative Agreement effective the time of
transition and instructs ICANN/PTI to enter into an agreement with
Verisign prior to that time.<br><br>
Perhaps there are other options. <br><br>
None can be done without NTIA taking some action, and to what extent
ICANN/PTI need to be involved will depend on how the NTIA chooses to
proceed. What it decides may well be influences by political issues in
Washington.<br><br>
<font color="#0000FF">I believe that the way forward is for the CWG
Co-Chairs to contact the NTIA and ask for either information on how they
plan to proceed so that we can take the appropriate steps (if any), or to
confirm that the issue is, for the moment, fully under their control and
that they will take the appropriate measures to ensure that the Root Zone
Maintainer is properly contracted and instructed post-transition. With
that information in hand, the CWG can confirm to the ICG that 1150,
Section 2 is under control.<br><br>
</font>Milton, I would be glad to attempt to address "requirements
of [] multiple annexes of the transition proposal", but could the
you or the ICG please be more specific. That reference covers 76
pages of text in the ICG document.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<br>
At 02/10/2015 05:30 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">All:<br>
<br>
I have looked over the proposed response to RZM question 1 and would have
to reject what is proposed and offer this alternative. <br>
<br>
No, the Verisign-ICANN proposal does not meet the requirements of 1150
Sections 2 and multiple annexes of the transition proposal, because it
only addresses the NTIA authorization role and does not address the
nature of the agreement that would be required to ensure that PTI's zone
file modifications are implemented by Verisign.<br>
<br>
The current draft asserts that only the NTIA can address the
post-transition relationship between Verisign and PTI and ICANN. This is
incorrect. It is true that only NTIA can modify the Cooperative Agreement
with Verisign. But future Verisign-ICANN or PTI-Verisign relationships,
contractual or otherwise, are not part of the cooperative agreement. NTIA
cannot be suddenly given the responsibility of determining how ICANN, PTI
and the RZM relate in the future, any more than we can ask it to define
the nature of the CSC or the board structure of PTI. This seems obvious
to me, perhaps others can explain why they think this critical part of
the transition cannot be addressed by the CWG. I also find it interesting
how the proposed response simply ignores the “multiple annexes of part 1”
aspect of the request. <br>
<br>
I realize that as an ICG member, being part of the body that posed the
question, I am also proposing a response. But I am forced to do that
because the proposed response really does not answer the question;
indeed, it seems to be intent on avoiding it. And at this stage in the
game, we want to avoid another round of questions that would inevitably
occur if you fail to actually answer the question. <br>
<br>
--MM<br>
<br>
<a name="_MailEndCompose"></a> <br>
<b>From:</b> cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Grace
Abuhamad<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 1, 2015 8:14 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> cwg-stewardship@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions<br>
<br>
Dear all, <br>
<br>
Following the call today, Marika and I have reviewed the responses to the
ICG Questions and prepared a redline and clean version for your review.
We received some text from Alan Greenberg for the RZM questions and some
text from Donna Austin for the .ARPA/CSC question. To summarize our
edits, please refer to the notes from the call:<br>
<br>
<b><i>3. ICG Questions - review of draft responses</i></b>
<ul>
<li>ICG sent two batches of questions which are presented in the document
on screen. CWG has already provided answers to questions.
<li>On RZM question #1: ICG misunderstood the NTIA/Versign proposal.
<li>On RZM question #2: we have a Standing Panel to approve substantial
changes. So the answer includes, community consultation, expert
consultation, and Board approval. Refer to paragraph 155 in the CWG
Proposal (1155 in the ICG). <b>Alan Greenberg: </b>Proposed reply to
Question 2: Both descriptions are correct but incomplete. The full answer
is addressed in paragraph ICG 1155 (CWG 155). A change in the
responsibilities of the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone
Maintainer is clearly a substantial architectual and operational
change, and is therefore subject to a review of the standing review
committee and ultimately ICANN Board approval. Subsection 5 of paragraph
155/1155 requires consultation through an ICANN Public Comment Process.
<li>On ccTLD questions #3, #4, #5: These were drafted by the ccTLD
members/participants. No comments or concerns. Thank you ccTLD
members/participants.
<li>On PTI question #6: complete. no comments
<li>On PTI question #7: Clarify text referring to "Community
Mechanism" since the CCWG-Accountability is currently working this
out. Additional clarfications listed in action item.
<li>On PTI question #8: no comments other than cross-checking with
implementation.
<li>On PTI question #9: PTI Board is responsible, but there is also
recourse to the ICANN Board. Confirm with lawyers
<li>On questions #10, #11, #12 on scope: no comments
<li>On question #13: representative of IAB or appointed person will be
involved in process.
</ul><br>
<br><br>
<b>Summary of current status on ICG questions</b>
<ul>
<li>Further work needed on questions #1, #2, #7, #9, #13
<li>Provisionally closed questions: #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #10, #11, #12
</ul>ACTIONS
<ul>
<li><b>Action</b>(staff): update Question #1 text on RZM with latest sent
to list (by Alan)
<li><b>Action</b>(staff): update question #2 per notes
<li><b>Action</b>(staff): incorporate Christopher's input (and any other
input received) where appropriate
<li><b>Action</b>(staff): Clarify text referring to "Community
Mechanism" (perhaps by capitalizing the word Mechanism to refer to
structure and by making a direct reference to the CCWG-Accountability).
Add "in the event that there is divergence between the Board and the
Community on an IFR decision/recommendation, the Community will be able
to rely on other mechanisms that are being developed by the CCWG."
<li><b>Action</b>(staff): update question #9 to include recourse to ICANN
Board.
<li><b>Action</b>(Chairs): run updated answer to question #9 by the
lawyers
<li><b>Action</b>(staff): staff to draft response to #13
</ul> <br>
Best, <br>
Grace<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>