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

[Mueller, Milton L]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Yes, in theory ICANN and Verisign could put anything in any document, but the
> proposal was explicitly addressing ONLY Paragraph 150, section 1 of the CWG
> report. 

So you agree that the answer to the ICG question should be something like: "No, the Verisign-ICANN proposal does not meet the requirements of 1150 Sections 2 and 3 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?

It's worth recounting here that no one but, presumably, Verisign and ICANN are aware of what was in the NTIA solicitation for the proposal. So are you asserting that you have seen the solicitation and know they were instructed only to address paragraph 150 section 1? Or are you inferring that based on its content? 

The solicitation was never published. The published proposal says only that 

"NTIA has asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal as to how best remove the NTIA's administrative role associated with root zone management in a manner that maintains the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet's domain name system." 

It says nothing about the CWG proposal, much less specific paragraphs or sections.