[CWG-Stewardship] ICANN-PTI Services Agreement

[Trang Nguyen]

Hi Paul,

Both of the points you brought up below contradict the CWG proposal and
therefore are not addressed in any of the PTI related documents.

Paragraph 1158 of the proposal
(<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-transition-p
roposal-10mar16-en.pdf>) says:

"Post transition there will only be the IFO and the Root Zone Maintainer.
The CWG-Stewardship is not recommending any change in the functions
performed by these two roles at this time. The CWG-Stewardship is
recommending that should there be proposals to make changes in the roles
associated with Root Zone modification, that such proposals should be
subject to wide community consultation.²

As Jonathan and Lise have reinforced multiple times, staff¹s role is to
implement according to the CWG proposal, and the CWG proposal clearly
requires the IFO role to remain the same post transition.

Best,

Trang



-----Original Message-----
From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk>
Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 7:16 AM
To: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>, Samantha
Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN-PTI Services Agreement

>Thanks Trang
>
>I have been asking members of the ccTLD community for their guidance on
>the
>draft Agreement and to make sure they are satisfied with Annex C being
>incorporated. (I have yet to read the latest draft).
>
>Also the CWG asked that I seek clarification as to what was meant by the
>opening
>remarks in Section 1.
>
>The comments I received by email were:
>
>
>"Bottom line is the vast majority ccTLDs do not want to appoint ICANN in
>charge
>of their enteries in the ROOT zone - (some ccTLDs - around 10 have
>agreements
>with ICANN which does outline the relationship - such as .AU) but the 240+
>others don't!"
>
>Where has this been respected/recognised please?
>
>I have subsequently been asked (as the original person advocating) by a
>different ccTLD Rep for a status report regarding the promised end-to-end
>automation for an updates to the Root Zone...
>
>I have said that this is not part of the transition and may occur later,
>but I'd
>welcome ICANN/IANA's response just to accurately convey the message to
>the ccTLD
>Community.
>
>Thanks 
>
>Paul
>  
>
>
>Quoting Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org>:
>
>> All,
>> 
>> Please see attached a draft of the ICANN-PTI services agreement.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Trang
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
>
>