[CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions

[Mueller, Milton L]

> -----Original Message-----
> I don't think that the ICANN-Verisign proposal could meet that requirement
> because it is beyond their control.  They are both dependent on action by
> NTIA.

I do not understand what you are saying here, Chuck. NTIA asked ICANN and Verisign for a proposal regarding post-transition RZM. They could propose whatever they liked. Yes, they depend on action by NTIA to implement it, but the ICG is asking whether the proposal meets requirements.  


> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 1:55 PM
> To: Alan Greenberg; Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG
> Questions
> 
> As I have already pointed out to Alan and Chuck on the DT-F list, I think the
> ICANN-Verisign proposal for RZM does not meet one essential requirement of
> the DTF.
> We called for an agreement between the RZMaintainer and the IANA
> Functions Operator to ensure that the IFO's changes would be implemented.
> As far as I  can tell, that requirement is fudged in the ICANN-Verisign proposal.
> We have no idea what kind of an agreement, if any, would exist between
> Verisign and ICANN after NTIA pulls away, nor do we have a more generic
> notion of how ICANN, IFO and RZM relate.
> 
> --MM
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> > bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:00 PM
> > To: Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to
> > ICG Questions
> >
> > Regarding the first item on the Verisign/ICANN proposal:
> >
> > To quote from an analysis I did for the ALAC Transition Support group:
> >
> > >The document is an implementation of the implied recommendation of
> > >Design Team F that nothing be changed in the RZMS code prior to or
> > >during transition. It follows the golden rule that you should make as
> > >few changes at the same time as possible.
> > >
> > >In my mind, this proposal carried that rule to a ridiculous extreme.
> >
> > The proposal calls for an lot of work and expense to avoid making a
> > relatively simple coding change that could be verified seventeen ways
> > to Sunday. But yes, it does meeting the CWG requirements.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > At 29/09/2015 09:57 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
> > >Dear All,
> > >
> > >In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG
> > >Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared the
> > >attached table which provides a draft response for a number of the
> > >ICG questions which is intended to serve as a starting point for
> > >CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and share
> > >your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to the
> > >CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Marika
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > >CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship