[CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

[Mueller, Milton L]

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.

MM: I still don't understand why people here are asserting that this I "not addressable solely by the CWG."
Future PTI/CANN/Verisign relationships are NOT part of the NTIA Cooperative Agreement with Verisign.
Future PTI/CANN/Verisign relationships ARE one of the most critical parts of the IANA transition.
Unless you want to have the US government involved permanently, those relationships have to be designed and set out by this CWG, based on its already-developed model (ICANN spinning off PTI into a separate subsidiary and Verisign staying in its current role as RZM).

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.

MM: In this "option," which I would contend is not a real option, the U.S. government becomes a permanent part of the contractual and administrative situation surrounding Root Zone maintenance. I submit that that is not acceptable to the world. Most of us have been operating under the assumption that the transition would end the privileged role of one government and turn the whole thing over to the 'global multistakeholder community.' If it is the USG, and only the USG, that requires Verisign to respect PTI, then we have not kept that promise.

None can be done without NTIA taking some action

MM: We have all known, from day one, that NTIA and NTIA alone can modify its Cooperative Agreement with Verisign. That does not mean, however, that CWG cannot come up with a proposal as to how ICANN and PTI relate to the Root Zone maintainer in the future. If the CWG doesn't do that job, it hasn't done its job. Once the CWG does that, the NTIA will know more about how to modify its Cooperative Agreement

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.

MM: I don't agree. Again, you are placing responsibility for designing a critical part of the post-transition root zone management regime in the hands of the NTIA. It does not belong there.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151003/c98e3d61/attachment.html>