[CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

Tue Oct 6 18:26:28 UTC 2015

☺
-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On October 6, 2015 2:19:56 PM EDT, David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org> wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20151006/727e2916/attachment-0001.html>