[CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

[Alan Greenberg]

Milton is correct in that this is an issue that is both critical to 
the transition and not addressed by the CWG, and I believe not 
addressable solely by the CWG.

There are a two obvious possible ways the issue can be addressed:

1. The NTIA amends the Cooperative Agreement to require Verisign to 
publish changes submitted to it by IANA. Perhaps IANA would have to 
be added as a signatory to that agreement.

2. The NTIA cancels the Cooperative Agreement effective the time of 
transition and instructs ICANN/PTI to enter into an agreement with 
Verisign prior to that time.

Perhaps there are other options.

None can be done without NTIA taking some action, and to what extent 
ICANN/PTI need to be involved will depend on how the NTIA chooses to 
proceed. What it decides may well be influences by political issues 
in Washington.

I believe that the way forward is for the CWG Co-Chairs to contact 
the NTIA and ask for either information on how they plan to proceed 
so that we can take the appropriate steps (if any), or to confirm 
that the issue is, for the moment, fully under their control and that 
they will take the appropriate measures to ensure that the Root Zone 
Maintainer is properly contracted and instructed post-transition. 
With that information in hand, the CWG can confirm to the ICG that 
1150, Section 2 is under control.

Milton, I would be glad to attempt to address "requirements of [] 
multiple annexes of the transition proposal", but could the you or 
the ICG please be more specific. That reference covers 76 pages  of 
text in the ICG document.

Alan


At 02/10/2015 05:30 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

>All:
>
>I have looked over the proposed response to RZM question 1 and would 
>have to reject what is proposed and offer this alternative.
>
>No, the Verisign-ICANN proposal does not meet the requirements of 
>1150 Sections 2 and multiple annexes of the transition proposal, 
>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.
>
>The current draft asserts that only the NTIA can address the 
>post-transition relationship between Verisign and PTI and ICANN. 
>This is incorrect. It is true that only NTIA can modify the 
>Cooperative Agreement with Verisign. But future Verisign-ICANN or 
>PTI-Verisign relationships, contractual or otherwise, are not part 
>of the cooperative agreement. NTIA cannot be suddenly given the 
>responsibility of determining how ICANN, PTI and the RZM relate in 
>the future, any more than we can ask it to define the nature of the 
>CSC or the board structure of PTI. This seems obvious to me, perhaps 
>others can explain why they think this critical part of the 
>transition cannot be addressed by the CWG. I also find it 
>interesting how the proposed response simply ignores the "multiple 
>annexes of part 1" aspect of the request.
>
>I realize that as an ICG member, being part of the body that posed 
>the question, I am also proposing a response. But I am forced to do 
>that because the proposed response really does not answer the 
>question; indeed, it seems to be intent on avoiding it. And at this 
>stage in the game, we want to avoid another round of questions that 
>would inevitably occur if you fail to actually answer the question.
>
>--MM
>
>
>From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
>Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 8:14 PM
>To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions
>
>Dear all,
>
>Following the call today, Marika and I have reviewed the responses 
>to the ICG Questions and prepared a redline and clean version for 
>your review. We received some text from Alan Greenberg for the RZM 
>questions and some text from Donna Austin for the .ARPA/CSC 
>question. To summarize our edits, please refer to the notes from the call:
>
>3. ICG Questions - review of draft responses
>    * ICG sent two batches of questions which are presented in the 
> document on screen. CWG has already provided answers to questions.
>    * On RZM question #1: ICG misunderstood the NTIA/Versign proposal.
>    * On RZM question #2: we have a Standing Panel to approve 
> substantial changes. So the answer includes, community 
> consultation, expert consultation, and Board approval. Refer to 
> paragraph 155 in the CWG Proposal (1155 in the ICG). Alan 
> Greenberg: Proposed reply to Question 2: Both descriptions are 
> correct but incomplete. The full answer is addressed in paragraph 
> ICG 1155 (CWG 155). A change in the responsibilities of the IANA 
> Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer is  clearly a 
> substantial architectual and operational change, and is therefore 
> subject to a review of the standing review committee and ultimately 
> ICANN Board approval. Subsection 5 of paragraph 155/1155 requires 
> consultation through an ICANN Public Comment Process.
>    * On ccTLD questions #3, #4, #5: These were drafted by the ccTLD 
> members/participants. No comments or concerns. Thank you ccTLD 
> members/participants.
>    * On PTI question #6: complete. no comments
>    * On PTI question #7: Clarify text referring to "Community 
> Mechanism" since the CCWG-Accountability is currently working this 
> out. Additional clarfications listed in action item.
>    * On PTI question #8: no comments other than cross-checking with 
> implementation.
>    * On PTI question #9: PTI Board is responsible, but there is 
> also recourse to the ICANN Board. Confirm with lawyers
>    * On questions #10, #11, #12 on scope: no comments
>    * On question #13: representative of IAB or appointed person 
> will be involved in process.
>
>
>
>Summary of current status on ICG questions
>    * Further work needed on questions #1, #2, #7, #9, #13
>    * Provisionally closed questions: #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #10, #11, #12
>ACTIONS
>    * Action(staff): update Question #1 text on RZM with latest sent 
> to list (by Alan)
>    * Action(staff): update question #2 per notes
>    * Action(staff): incorporate Christopher's input (and any other 
> input received) where appropriate
>    * Action(staff): Clarify text referring to "Community Mechanism" 
> (perhaps by capitalizing the word Mechanism to refer to structure 
> and by making a direct reference to the CCWG-Accountability). Add 
> "in the event that there is divergence between the Board and the 
> Community on an IFR decision/recommendation, the Community will be 
> able to rely on other mechanisms that are being developed by the CCWG."
>    * Action(staff): update question #9 to include recourse to ICANN Board.
>    * Action(Chairs): run updated answer to question #9 by the lawyers
>    * Action(staff): staff to draft response to #13
>
>Best,
>Grace
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151003/c76fbf40/attachment-0001.html>