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

[Mueller, Milton L]

I think in effect Alan and Chuck have answered the ICG question. They are saying that the ICANN-Verisign proposal does NOT meet the requirements because it was designed to address a much more limited issue ("how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transition")

More comments below:

> -----Original Message-----
> CG:
> I think you made my point much better than I did:  ". .  the Verisign/ICANN
> proposal was not a vehicle for this (amending or replacing the RZMaintainer
> Cooperative Agreement). That proposal is solely about how to logistically
> eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transistion, and not introduce any
> risk . . . the proposal is addressing a completely different issue . . . "

The proposal may be addressing a different issue, but I think both of you may be missing the point. Unless we know whether there is a contractual or other kind of "agreement" between PTI and Verisign, we do not know what arrangements will ensure that PTI's root zone changes are implemented. If the ICANN-Verisign proposal does not address that issue, it does not meet the requirements of the CWG transition proposal. 

And we cannot simply say, "that is for NTIA to solve." The future relationship between PTI and Verisign is not something that can be addressed by modifying the NTIA-Verisign cooperative agreement (unless of course you want NTIA to continue in its oversight role in some way). All NTIA can do is get itself out of the way by ending its authorization role. But we need to know what binds Verisign to implement PTI's root zone modifications, and whether ICANN is the contracting party, whether ICANN can end the contract and take over the function itself, etc. Those questions are, I guess we agree, not answered in the proposal. So I would recommend answering in that way. 

--MM