[CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

Tue Oct 6 18:19:56 UTC 2015

Chuck,

Similarly, given my role at ICANN, I feel a bit awkward in these
discussions, however I will allow a bit of engineering pedantism to leak
out:

I'd suggest revising:

"Instead, their proposal is about how to logistically eliminate NTIA
approvals at the moment of transition, and not introduce any risk."

To:

"Instead, their proposal is about how to implement and test the logistical
elimination of NTIA approvals at the moment of transition in order to
minimize risk."

Regards,
-drc

On 10/6/15, 9:41 AM, "cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Gomes,
Chuck" <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org on behalf of 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:
> ³The 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-Stewardship¹s knowledge, been addressed.²
> 
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151006/5d81ef32/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151006/5d81ef32/smime-0001.p7s>