[CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

[Alan Greenberg]

At 03/10/2015 07:13 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
>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).

What I (or anyone on the CWG or ICG) is not the issue. WE cannot 
unilaterally cancel the agreement between tow other parties, and if 
Verisign plans to do that, I have not been informed.

>
>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.

The CWG *HAS* laid out how this should unfold and it is documented in 
1150, 2b. We have not drafted the contract, and I believe that 
without an indication from the NTIA as to how it will proceed, I 
believe that is premature.

Alan