[CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

Tue Oct 6 16:56:30 UTC 2015

I agree to the suggested action items suggested by Chuck

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 6 Oct 2015 17:44, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> Regarding our response to question #1, here are some personal suggestions:
>
> 1.       I think that the first part of our response as copied here is
> fine:  “The Verisign/ICANN proposal is not a vehicle for amending or
> replacing the Cooperative Agreement. Instead, their proposal is about how
> to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transition, and
> not introduce any risk.  The Verisign/ICANN proposal addresses only
> paragraph 1150, Section 1. Section 2 has not, to the CWG-Stewardship’s
> knowledge, been addressed.”
>
> 2.       The co-chairs should send a letter to the NTIA as soon as
> possible seeking clarification.  I attached some proposed elements of such
> a letter.
>
> 3.       We should add to our response by noting that we have sent some
> questions to the NTIA.
>
> 4.       We should discuss whether there are other actions that we should
> take pending responses from NTIA.
>
>
>
> I always feel awkward discussing the Root Zone Maintainer function because
> I am a Verisign employee.  In that regard, let me say that the above
> suggestions are strictly my own as a part of the CWG;  I have not consulted
> with my Verisign colleagues on them.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 06, 2015 10:57 AM
> *To:* Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find attached an updated version which includes the proposed
> addition to paragraph 113 as suggested by Sidley for question 6, the edit
> to question 13 as suggested by Chuck and noting that the response to
> question 1 is still under discussion (if those that have been discussing
> this question on the list have a proposal to revise the draft response to
> reflect the feedback received, please share the proposed response with the
> list).
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *From: *<cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <
> grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday 1 October 2015 18:13
> *To: *"cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <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/20151006/3028e3c6/attachment.html>