- ALAC - lists.icann.org

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Response to Letter From Dr. Crocker
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim April 20, 2016

April 20, 2016

Dear ALAC, Attached is the correspondence to Chairman of the ICANN Board from Stephen Coates, Avri Doria, and Jeff Neuman Co-chairs, GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group regarding ALAC and GAC concerns on the effectiveness of the Public Interest Commitments (PICs) for sensitive new gTLDs in response to the letter from Dr. Crocker. This is excellent movement on the issue. Best regards, Rinalia

1 0

Special Board Meeting 14 April 2016
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim April 17, 2016

April 17, 2016

Dear ALAC, FYI - Agenda published for Special Board meeting on 14 April. Main agenda is discussion on October 2016 ICANN meeting venue contracting. https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2016-04-14-en Best regards, Rinalia

1 2

Re: [ALAC] Content regulation
by Carlton Samuels April 15, 2016

April 15, 2016

My response to the matter of the Chairman of the Board's response to the GNSO Council re ICANN's responsibility in context as guardian of the [global] public interest vs. Bruce [Tonkin's] remarks at Marrakech on same matter seems apropos here. It is extracted hereunder. ------------------------------------------------------- Seems to me he's 'walking it back' towards the safe harbour outlined by Bruce. I would frame a response on " *(v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv)*.” In my view and in this context, arguments stemming definition of the 'global public interest' tend to instantiate sophism. We have established the causes for this business of 'coordination' claimed as mission for ICANN; it is to make the DNS space exploitable for the many uses already identified. Add to these - channeling the descriptives of the myths from elsewhere - those yet 'invisible and unknown'. In my view any matter that undercuts the security and stability tra la la - the instances i) thru iv) quoted so often - of the DNS, that is to say, erode/reduce/tax consumer/user trust in the DNS, is inimical to the [global] public interest and are, in reason and judgment, targets of 'lawful' activity to reduce/suppress/remove said instances and threats. If this does not clearly establish ICANN's duty of care - and the duty to demonstrate care in as many ways as necessary! - I cannot think what else would. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Blog written by Allen Grogan - could be of interest to the ALAC on registrant > issues. > > See > https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police > > Best regards, > > Rinalia > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

2 2

Content regulation
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim April 15, 2016

April 15, 2016

Blog written by Allen Grogan - could be of interest to the ALAC on registrant issues. See https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-is-not-the-internet-content-police Best regards, Rinalia

4 5

The Public Interest (was: Fwd: [council] Updated [Correspondence] Steve Crocker to James Bladel re:GNSO Query on Public Interest and Exclusive Registry Access for gTLDs)
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 14, 2016

April 14, 2016

Dear all, further to discussions about the Public Interest, please be so kind to find a response from the Chair of the ICANN Board to the Chair of the GNSO concerning a query about Exclusive Registry Access for gTLD Strings Representing Generic Terms. As a reminder, when the ALAC discussed the Public Interest with the ICANN Board at the Marrakech meeting, Bruce Tonkin, Board member, responded with a vision of the Public Interest mission of ICANN that was purely technical in terms of making sure Domain Names resolved to the proper IP addresses. During the ALT meeting with the ICANN Board Chair, the ICANN Board Chair responded that this was not quite correct and provided some language that broadened the use of the term "The Public Interest" which was more aligned to the ALAC's view that all actions that ICANN took needed to take into account the Public Interest. (I'll have to read the transcripts back for the exact wording) In the attached letter, the Chair of the ICANN Board quotes Paragraph 3 of the Articles of Incorporation - so that's a very technical baseline. He then explains the current status of information collection from the ICANN research on the global public interest framework. But nothing more so far. I would like to take this up with the Public Interest working group - but would appreciate your feedback first. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] Updated [Correspondence] Steve Crocker to James Bladel re:GNSO Query on Public Interest and Exclusive Registry Access for gTLDs Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:16:08 +0000 From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> To: GNSO Council List (council(a)gnso.icann.org) <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear Councillors, Please find the updated correspondence Steve Crocker to James Bladel re: GNSO Query on Public Interest and Exclusive Registry Access for gTLDs. This updated version has one very minor edit in the last sentence. Apologies for the inconvenience of double posting. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen

3 3

Fw: [CCT-Review] One We've Been Waiting For: Google Switches TLDRegistrar to .Google Domain Name
by Kan Kaili April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Hi, thought that you may find it interesting ... Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez To: Jordyn Buchanan Cc: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez via CCT-Review Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 12:11 AM Subject: [CCT-Review] One We've Been Waiting For: Google Switches TLDRegistrar to .Google Domain Name Congrats Jordyn! http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160404_google_switches_tld_registrar_to_dot… One We've Been Waiting For: Google Switches TLD Registrar to .Google Domain Name If you've read my posts before you'll be well aware that as a strong advocate for .brands and the power they have to revolutionise digital marketing effectiveness, I am always eager to share some love with organisations that have taken the leap and launched their .brand TLDs. In recent months we've seen diverse and exciting examples from BMW, the Australian Football League and CERN — just to name a notable few. I have the privilege of advising some of the world's largest companies on their .brand strategy, but one recurring question I hear is "When will we see .google and how will they use it?" Google Domains permanently moved to the .brand domain name www.domains.googleLast week, a significant instalment in that answer became apparent when Google Small Business announced on Twitter and Google+ that Google Domains had permanently moved to the .brand domain name www.domains.google as its primary digital location. This relatively new business stream is Google's attempt to take on companies like GoDaddy and Web.com in providing domain names, websites and associated services to SMEs and is a slick offering that blends in a range of other Google services. It is however not the first time they've used their .google extension, but is certainly the most prominent. We know Google has registered a small number of other domains under its .brand TLD, including the humorous 'www.com.google' which was used for an April Fools' Day prank last year where the page appeared in reverse as if the visitor was 'inside' the search engine looking out at the user. Note — that feature is no longer active and users typing in that address now are redirected to the standard search homepage. Additionally, Google launched www.registry.google as its Top-Level Domain information hub several months ago, but by its nature this site is unlikely to reach many beyond our industry. Its domain name Registrar however will receive significantly higher levels of traffic given its consumer focus, particularly when availability is opened beyond the US. Other domains created but not yet resolving include 'www.nest.google', clearly referring to Alphabet subsidiary and home automation producer Nest. The search giant has made a conscious decision about its .brand TLD here; deciding to publically launch and promote www.domains.google despite also owning www.google.domains. It is a great sign of things to come with many commenters already expressing interest in the likelihood of seeing www.maps.google, www.drive.google and the like in the future. From an alternate perspective, visitors to the domain design.google will find themselves redirected to domains.google.com which is the traditional web address for Google Design. Google has ticked all the best practice boxes in the transition, with the redirection of previous domain names to new addresses and selection of a familiar, intuitive naming structure for key activities such as the Google Domains initiatives. The launch of www.domains.google indicates a strategy forming around simple, utility-based domain names under its .google TLD, which reflect pre-existing third-level structures with the .com extension 'dropped' off the end. For example, www.domains.google was previously located at domains.google.com, which now redirects. Finally, the elephant in the room with this domain transition is the search factor. With Google dictating the world of search as its most dominant player and many of the domain name industry continually looking for updates on its treatment of new TLDs, the performance of .google and Google Registry's other TLDs will be an interesting case to watch. By Tony Kirsch, Head of Professional Services at Neustar Related topics: Domain Names, Top-Level Domains, Web -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ CCT-Review mailing list CCT-Review(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cct-review

2 2

Fwd: ISOC - CL : IGFSA: Opportunity for funding of national and regional IGFs
by Judith Hellerstein April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

4 4

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ISOC - CL : IGFSA: Opportunity for funding of national and regional IGFs
by Seun Ojedeji April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

I understand the igfsa funds is available to all national and regional igfs irrespective of country status the form is available at the url below: https://igfsa.wufoo.com/forms/nationalregional-igf-meeting-funding-proposal/ Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 5 Apr 2016 17:07, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: Funding not possible for National IGFs in countries that are not in developing countries list. Kindest regards, Olivier On 05/04/2016 15:56, Judith Hellerstein wrote: HI Glenn, It is not ISOC that is supporting it, it is the IGF SA. ISOC is just the secretariat of the IGF SA. This is the same amount they gave last year. Perhaps if they had more donations they could provide more support. They are also supporting people and providing fellowships for people from developing countries to come to the Global IGF. Perhaps ISOC will also put their own funding behind this. I recall they did this last year. the IGF-USA event costed about 50-60,000 to put on last year Best, Judith _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein E-mail: Judith(a)jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide On 4/5/2016 9:52 AM, Glenn McKnight wrote: Judith I would guess that a good IGF event costs substantial amount to organize and deliver. Since the IGF is so important and Raquel was on the panel last week at SSIG I don't understand why ISOC is providing such meager financial support G Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight . On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Judith Hellerstein <judith(a)jhellerstein.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > In case others have not seen this call from ISOC it relates to funding > opportunities from the IGF Support Association for funding of National and > Regional IGFs. They are giving Regional IGFs 3500 USD and National IGFs > 2000 USD. All groups who are hosting IGFs should apply. I know some in > APRALO area were seeking funding for their IGFs so here is your chance for > funding > > Best, > Judith > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO > Hellerstein & Associates > 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 > Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein > E-mail: Judith(a)jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com > Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ > Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: ISOC - CL : IGFSA: Opportunity for funding of national and > regional IGFs > Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 11:47:03 +0000 > From: Joyce Dogniez via Internet Society <Mail(a)ConnectedCommunity.org> > <Mail(a)ConnectedCommunity.org> <Mail(a)ConnectedCommunity.org> > Reply-To: INTERNETSOCIETY-chapterleaderscommunity(a)ConnectedCommunity.org > To: judith(a)jhellerstein.com > > Hi Everyone, Please find below an announcement from Markus Kummer on a > funding opportunity for national and regional IGFs through he IGFSA. ... > -posted to the "Chapter Leaders Community" community > == Please, reply ABOVE THIS LINE == > ------------------------------ > Chapter Leaders Community > <http://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer/…> > Post New Message > <INTERNETSOCIETY-chapterleaderscommunity(a)ConnectedCommunity.org> > IGFSA: Opportunity for funding of national and regional IGFs > <https://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer…> > Reply to Group > <INTERNETSOCIETY_chapterleaderscommunity_130b4bc3-9416-45f9-9e86-9ba0c6bf1c21@ConnectedCommunity.org?subject=Re:%20IGFSA:%20Opportunity%20for%20funding%20of%20national%20and%20regional%20IGFs> Reply > to Sender > <http://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/all-discussions/postreply/?G…> > [image: Joyce Dogniez] > <http://connect.internetsociety.org/people/joyce-dogniez> > Apr 5, 2016 7:47 AM > Joyce Dogniez <http://connect.internetsociety.org/people/joyce-dogniez> > > Hi Everyone, > > Please find below an announcement from Markus Kummer on a funding > opportunity for national and regional IGFs through he IGFSA. > > Should you have any questions about this please contact Kyle Shulman at > Shulman(a)igfsa.org > > Thanks a lot! > > Joyce > > ---- > > Dear all, > > The IGFSA has issued an open call to apply for funding of National and Regional > IGF initiatives. Organisers of National and Regional IGF initiatives are > invited to apply, using the form below: > > igfsa.wufoo.com/forms/... > <https://igfsa.wufoo.com/forms/nationalregional-igf-meeting-funding-proposal/> > > Last year, we supported 15 National and 7 Regional and Sub-regional initiatives > with contributions ranging between USD 2000 and USD 3500. > > Contributions this year are expected to be in the same range. > > We hope that our contribution helps strengthen the National and Regional > IGF initiatives and enhance their linkages with the global IGF. > > Best regards > > Markus > ------------------------------ > dogniez(a)isoc.org > Director of Chapters > > Note: replies will be sent to the full discussion group. > ------------------------------ > *Reply to Group Online > <http://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/all-discussions/postreply/?M…>* > *View Thread > <https://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer…>* > *Recommend > <https://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer…>* > *Forward > <http://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/all-discussions/forwardmessa…>* > *Flag as Inappropriate > <https://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer…>* > > > > > You are subscribed to "Chapter Leaders Community" as > judith(a)jhellerstein.com. To change your subscriptions, go to My > Subscriptions > <http://connect.internetsociety.org/preferences?section=Subscriptions>. > To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to Unsubscribe > <http://connect.internetsociety.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?Use…> > . > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28…> > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Fwd: [council] FW: [Correspondence from Steve Crocker] PICs and Category 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 26, 2016

March 26, 2016

FYI -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] FW: [Correspondence from Steve Crocker] PICs and Category 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:51:11 +0000 From: James M. Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com> To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Council Colleagues - For your review, please see the attached letter from Steve Crocker to the chairs of the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT), and the PDP WG on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. Thank you, J. From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit(a)icann.org <mailto:wendy.profit@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 13:47 To: "zuck(a)ACTonline.org <mailto:zuck@ACTonline.org>" <zuck(a)ACTonline.org <mailto:zuck@ACTonline.org>>, "avri(a)acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri(a)acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "scoates(a)twitter.com <mailto:scoates@twitter.com>" <scoates(a)twitter.com <mailto:scoates@twitter.com>>, "jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>" <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>" <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>>, Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby(a)icann.org <mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org>>, "alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org>>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org <mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>, "Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org <mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>" <Board-Ops-Team(a)icann.org <mailto:Board-Ops-Team@icann.org>>, "gacsec(a)icann.org <mailto:gacsec@icann.org>" <gacsec(a)icann.org <mailto:gacsec@icann.org>>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org <mailto:Heidi.Ullrich@icann.org>> Subject: [Correspondence from Steve Crocker] PICs and Category 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs Dear Jonathan, Avri, Stephen, and Jeff, Please find the attached letter from Steve Crocker on behalf of the ICANN Board regarding concerns raised by the ALAC and GAC around the effectiveness of the contracted PICs for the GAC Category 1, Safeguard 1-8 TLDs (“Safeguard PICs”). With warm regards, Wendy Profit ICANN Board Operations Specialist 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Mobile: 1-310-773-6811 Office: 1-310-578-8695

6 7

Fwd: [IANA-issues] Fwd: [ianatransition] A Progress Update: Ensuring the Security, Stability and Resiliency of Root Zone Maintenance
by Maureen Hilyard March 20, 2016

March 20, 2016

WOW.. what else is happening that we don't know about? so much for transparency! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Date: Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 11:21 PM Subject: Re: [IANA-issues] Fwd: [ianatransition] A Progress Update: Ensuring the Security, Stability and Resiliency of Root Zone Maintenance To: iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Hello all, just to add my points of view on this, which I have shared in another list: --- cut here --- When the proposal will be up for Public Comment, I am sure that the At-Large Advisory Committee will have comments. For the time being, I personally have noted two main points: 1. That the whole discussion of the agreement between ICANN and Verisign is fraught with secrecy. Whilst the whole Community was involved with the CWG IANA Stewardship and CCWG Accountability, the actual relationship between Verisign & ICANN was launched as a separate process that concerned only Verisign & ICANN. We are seeing the same pattern as for the establishment of the Registry and the Registrar Accreditation Agreements - and when the ALAC has enquired about this in the past, it was told "these are commercial agreements that you have no business putting your nose in". So much for transparency. And unfortunately this lack of transparency is vehemently defended by contracted parties. So the community has **little or no influence** in what the relationship with Verisign will be. 2. Because of (1), the community has very little knowledge of what the exact current terms of contract are with Verisign. We were told that the provision of the IANA Operator services was provided in the past at cost. Now we're told there will be compensation. We're also told that there will be "certain service level agreements" -- when the set of service level expectations negotiated between ICANN and the Operational Communities is very close to being completed already. We're also told that the function could be transitioned "after an agreed-upon number of years" when the community powers could be effected as soon as they are in place. And finally, I note that it appears that the .com Registry Agreement has been linked to the RZMA "which ICANN and Verisign believed enhances the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure". I'd like to get SSAC's point of view on this. That's all for the time being. I am eagerly waiting for the Public Comment period. Kindest regards, Olivier (own views) On 20/03/2016 09:56, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: FYI -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ianatransition] A Progress Update: Ensuring the Security, Stability and Resiliency of Root Zone Maintenance Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:35:53 +0000 From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> <grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org> To: ianatransition(a)icann.org <ianatransition(a)icann.org> <ianatransition(a)icann.org> Original link: <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta… . A Progress Update: Ensuring the Security, Stability and Resiliency of Root Zone Maintenance <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-sta…> On 10 March 2016, a plan to transition the IANA stewardship from the U.S. government's oversight to a global multistakeholder community was submitted to NTIA for consideration. Witnessing the extraordinary efforts of the multistakeholder community to develop these proposals has been impressive and humbling. While the community has been working hard to finalize the proposals included in the plan, my team and I have been diligently preparing for the implementation phase of the anticipated IANA stewardship transition. One of the tasks that must be completed is for ICANN and Verisign to enter into a Root ZoneMaintainer Agreement (RZMA). Another is to extend the .com Registry Agreement to run for the same term as the RZMA, which ICANN and Verisign believe enhances the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. Today, I want to provide you with some background information on the RZMA and an update on our progress. As noted in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal, the complete and finalized transition requires revising the relationship between the current IANA Functions Operator (ICANN), the current Root Zone Maintainer (Verisign) and the current Root Zone Administrator (NTIA). Specifically, the role of NTIA will be eliminated and a written agreement between ICANN and Verisign establishing each party's role will need to be in place once that happens. On 4 March 2015, NTIA officially requested that ICANN and Verisign work together to develop a proposal on how best to transition NTIA's administrative role associated with root zone management. Of paramount importance is accomplishing this in a manner that maintains the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone management process. ICANN and Verisign are close to having terms and conditions that accomplish this essential objective and that clearly define the respective roles and responsibilities of each party. In general, we have already agreed that Verisign will be compensated for performance of the maintainer function and will have obligations to meet certain service-level agreements (SLAs) that the parties may adjust to address recommendations of the Customer Standing Committee pursuant to a change control process anticipated in the agreement. This change process is being defined to allow for the community to introduce through ICANN improvements to the Root Zone Management System as well. While the term of the RZMA is intended to promote the security, stability and resiliency of root zone maintenance operations by having Verisign continue in its role, the agreement also provides a capability for the community, through a consensus-based community-driven process, to cause ICANN to transition the function to another service provider after an agreed-upon number of years. There are some remaining issues that need to be resolved before we finalize a draft of the agreement. It's difficult to enumerate these issues because discussions are ongoing and the status of the issues changes frequently. However, we are making good progress and expect to complete a draft soon. Once ICANN and Verisign have completed the draft agreement, it will be posted for a 30-day community review period. This is in accordance with ICANN's transparency as well as in keeping with the recommendation in the ICG proposal to make the draft proposal available for public review prior to execution. There is still work to do but we are making good progress. I encourage you to explore the web pages listed below for more information and to keep abreast of the latest developments. - Root Zone Administrator Proposal Related to the IANA Functions Stewardship Transition <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_pr…> [PDF, 247 KB] - IANA Stewardship Transition Implementation <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-implementation> - IANA Stewardship and Accountability <https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability> _______________________________________________ Iana-issues mailing listIana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ Iana-issues mailing list Iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues

1 0