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

Fri Oct 9 07:32:00 UTC 2015

Thank-you Alissa,

The intention is that these answers are final.

Jonathan

From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] 
Sent: 08 October 2015 17:40
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

Thank you.

I see that the document is titled "Draft Responses" and the middle column is
labeled "Draft Response," while all but two of the answered are labelled as
"considered complete" and the other two as "updated." Should we expect
further responses from the CWG, or are all of these answers final?

Thanks,

Alissa

On Oct 7, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
<mailto: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
<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Alissa Cooper
<alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in> >
Date: Thursday 24 September 2015 16:01
To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org> "
<cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto: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 ICG's 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 board's 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: "As a separate legal entity, PTI will
have a board of directors and have the minimum statutorily required
responsibilities and powers." This phrasing implies that it is the PTI
itself rather than the PTI board that will have "the minimum statutorily
required responsibilities and powers." However, from the underlying legal
expertise (from Sidley) we read the minimum statutorily required
responsibilities and powers as being applied to the PTI board. We'd like to
ask the CWG whether this interpretation is correct. If so, we would propose
amending the sentence by replacing "and" with "who" as follows: "As a
separate legal entity, PTI will have a board of directors who have the
minimum statutorily required responsibilities and powers."

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." 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/20151009/d13aab40/attachment-0001.html>