[CWG-Stewardship] Questions from the ICG - batch 2

[Grace Abuhamad]

Hi Alissa, 

I understand the ICG has a call in less than an hour, so in the interest of
time, I have provided responses to your clarifying questions below.

For question 9 ‹ To confirm, the amendment proposed would be for paragraph
1113 in the ICG Proposal (equivalent to paragraph 113 in the CWG-Stewardship
Proposal). 

For question 13 ‹ your understanding is correct:
* There is a space reserved on the IFRT for a CSC liaison.
* The CSC liaison could be any of the CSC members.
* There is a position on the CSC for a .ARPA TLD representative.
* Should the .ARPA TLD position be filled, this representative, as a CSC
member, could serve as the CSC liaison to the IFRT (depending on the
selection process from the CSC to the IFRT).
‹Grace

From:  <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Alissa Cooper
<alissa at cooperw.in>
Date:  Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 1:03 PM
To:  Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Cc:  "cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Questions from the ICG - batch 2

I have a couple more follow-up questions.

Question 9: The CWG proposes amended text for paragraph 113. I assume that
in the ICG proposal this amendment would be for paragraph 1113. Please
confirm.

Question 13: The last sentence of the answer says "In the composition of the
IFR Team, there is a role reserved for a CSC Liaison, which could, but is
not required to, be the .ARPA domain.² There is a little ambiguity in the
grammar of that sentence. I assume what is meant here is that the role of
CSC liaison to the IFR Team could be fulfilled by a CSC member who
represents the .ARPA TLD, should such a member exist. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Alissa,
> 
> On behalf of the CWG-Stewardship and in consultation with the CWG-Stewardship
> Chairs, please find attached the CWG-Stewardship responses to the ICG
> questions. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Alissa Cooper
> <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Date: Thursday 24 September 2015 16:01
> To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Questions from the ICG - batch 2
> 
> Dear CWG,
> 
> As indicated in my previous email, here is a second batch of questions from
> the ICG based on comments received during our public comment period. We have
> continued the numbering of the questions from the first batch. We do not
> expect to have any further questions for you at present although we may want
> to follow up upon receiving responses to these and from the other operational
> communities.
> 
> We are requesting responses to these questions ideally by 7 October at 23:59
> UTC (prior to the ICG¹s final call before ICANN 54 on October 8), or by 14
> October at 23:59 UTC if the CWG requires more time. We realize this is an
> aggressive timetable, so please keep us informed if you feel you need further
> time.
> 
> Some of the questions below include requests or suggestions for amendments to
> the text of the CWG proposal as reflected in Part 1 of the combined proposal.
> The ICG would like to state explicitly that we do not expect a further ICG
> public comment period to be necessary on the combined proposal if these
> amendments are made. While the ICG reserves the right to seek further public
> comment if we receive extensive amendments from the operational communities,
> we do not expect to do so at this time.
> 
> PTI
> 
> 6) The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation as
> needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the Internet. A
> number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end up
> being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a need
> for some information exchange and coordination between the operational
> communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might have
> on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies
> between the functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This
> information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of
> remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, the three operational
> communities need to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary when
> changing operator, whether by leveraging existing coordination mechanisms or
> new ones. Can the names operational community provide such a commitment? If
> so, the ICG intends to reflect that and the commitments of the other
> communities in Part 0 of the transition proposal.
> 
> 7) Please could you clarify whether or not compliance by ICANN and/or PTI is
> mandatory when decisions or recommendations are made by an IFR or Special IFR
> process.
> 
> 8)  Comments regarding the PTI board fall in two broad categories, one about
> the board¹s powers and another one about which members get selected to the
> board and how. Some of the comments have differing suggestions as to what the
> actual member selection process should be. We note that the board composition
> and selection procedures have been extensively discussed within the CWG and
> should be elaborated in detail during the implementation phase.
> 
> Paragraph 1112 of the proposal says: ³As a separate legal entity, PTI will
> have a board of directors and have the minimum statutorily required
> responsibilities and powers.² This phrasing implies that it is the PTI itself
> rather than the PTI board that will have "the minimum statutorily required
> responsibilities and powers.² However, from the underlying legal expertise
> (from Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required responsibilities and
> powers as being applied to the PTI board. We¹d like to ask the CWG whether
> this interpretation is correct. If so, we would propose amending the sentence
> by replacing ³and² with ³who² as follows: ³As a separate legal entity, PTI
> will have a board of directors who have the minimum statutorily required
> responsibilities and powers.²
> 
> 9)  Some comments raise concerns in the context of the proposed PTI board
> composition (mix of ICANN employees and independent directors) that the ICANN
> board and the PTI board could attempt to avoid responsibility for any
> operational shortcomings by each seeking to hold the other board responsible.
> Paragraph 1113 in Part 1 indicates that the PTI board will be responsible for
> ensuring that the PTI "fulfills its responsibilities under the IANA functions
> contract with ICANN.² Could the CWG provide an unambiguous statement as to
> which of the two boards will ultimately be held accountable for ensuring that
> the IANA functions are carried out appropriately? Please include verbatim text
> amendments to Part 1 if you believe that would be appropriate to clarify this
> point.
> 
> Scope
> 
> 10)  The CWG-Stewardship proposal uses the terms "IANA Functions Operator" and
> "IFO" in a way that appears to refer to the operator of the IANA Naming
> Functions, and not necessarily to the operator of other IANA functions, such
> as the IANA Numbering Functions or the IANA Protocol Parameters Functions.
> Please could you clarify whether or not these terms, in the CWG-Stewardship
> proposal, are intended to refer only to the names portion of the IANA
> functions.
> 
> 11)  Please could you clarify whether or not the Customer Standing Committee
> (CSC) applies only to the names portion of the IANA functions.
> 
> 12)  Please could you clarify whether or not the IANA Functions Review (IFR)
> and Special IFR apply only to the names portion of the IANA functions.
> 
> 13)  The .ARPA domain is used for special purposes.  Please could you clarify
> whether or not the .ARPA domain will be included in the CSC and IFR processes.
> 
> 
> Please let us know if any of our questions require clarification.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
> 
> <ICG Questions - FINAL 7 October 2015.doc>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151008/563fe4cf/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151008/563fe4cf/smime-0001.p7s>