[CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

Wed Oct 7 02:38:08 UTC 2015

Thanks David.  It looks like your change was made in the version that Marika
distributed today.

Chuck

From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at icann.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 2:20 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Marika Konings; Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

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:
"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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151007/f72dd9bc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5909 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151007/f72dd9bc/smime-0001.p7s>