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

[Alan Greenberg]

At 02/10/2015 11:08 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>[...]
>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).

I know I prefer that the NTIA disengages completely, but I have no 
idea if that is indeed what they are planning for the moment of transition.


>All NTIA can do is get itself out of the way by ending its authorization role.

Or they could simply amend the existing agreement as agreement as per 
1150, Section 2a.

>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