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

[Alan Greenberg]

At 02/10/2015 05:14 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

> > -----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?

I have not seen the solicitation.

Based on discussions with David Conrad, who was one of the people who 
worked on the response to the solicitation, I believe that the intent 
was very clearly just focused on section 1. Moreover the NTI-Versign 
Agreement is referenced in several of the Q&As appended to the 
proposal and clearly (in my mind) is being discussed as something 
separate from the solicitation and resultant proposal.

Alan


>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.