Regarding the root zone maintainer role that Verisign performs as a no-cost service, here are some references that the DT may find helpful.

As I think everyone knows, Verisign performs those services under a cooperative agreement that dates back to the 1990’s with NSI (Network Solutions Incorporated, now Verisign).  Amendment 11 of that agreement contains the clause that I think Becky referred to in the chat on our call today.  That amendment can be found at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/amend11_052206.pdf .  Here is what I believe is the relevant clause: “NSI agrees to continue to function as the administrator for the primary root server for the root server system and as a root zone administrator until such time as the USG instructs NSI in writing to transfer either or both of these functions to NewCo or a specified alternate entity.”

Here are some related references to statements that Larry Strickling has made since the transition was proposed:

1.       http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2014/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-icann-high-level-governmental-meeting

Relevant excerpt:

In making our announcement, we have communicated a number of conditions that we insist must apply to the transition.  First, the proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support.  More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution.  Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system.  And in that regard, all we have put on the table is a transitioning of our role.  Due to the need to maintain security and stability, we have not asked for an evaluation of the role of ICANN and Verisign in this process.  Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services.  And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet.

2.     http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ

Q. Who performs the related root zone management functions?

A. VeriSign performs the related root zone management functions pursuant to a cooperative agreement with NTIA.

Q. What impact does this announcement have on the cooperative agreement with Verisign?

A. Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root zone file management), which would require that NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities.

3.       Larry’s comments in Singapore to the GAC (in response to French GAC rep question):

>>LARRY STRICKLING: THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, DAVID. AND AGAIN, LET ME PERSONALLY THANK YOU AND YOUR GOVERNMENT FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF OUR ANNOUNCEMENT. ALL THAT WE ARE PUTTING INTO DISCUSSION IS THE UNITED STATES' ROLE. SO WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE ROLE THAT ICANN CURRENTLY PERFORMS OR THE ROLE THAT VERISIGN CURRENTLY PERFORMS NEED TO BE RE-EVALUATED OR ADJUSTED.

I hope this is helpful.

Chuck

• ICG timeline is still tentative and will need to be further discussed and considered by ICG - issues such as public comment and consultation has not been factored in
• Outreach / education needed on how naming relationship with IANA differs from other communities which may also be reflected in proposals that will eventually be submitted
• Not the role of the ICG to develop proposals or choose from competing proposals according to charter
• Draft timeline does not allow for resolution of possible issues or testing, incl. no transition window

• Members (from chartering organizations)- consider keeping it relatively small to ensure being able to make progress (min. 2, max 3-5 from each chartering organization). Observers - consider leaving it open (can participate in conversations, but not responsible for getting the work done).
• SO/AC/SG/C should consider opening up their processes so that others interested could also join as members who are not necessarily formal members of SO/AC/SG/C
• Should this CWG redirect any requests from other communities to participate to their respective groups?
• Proposal to have chartering organizations have min. 2, max of 5 of representatives on the CWG. Open to observers from all communities. Make CWG operations as transparent and open as possible for all, both with regard to F2F as well as online meetings.
• Observers can provide input, but should decisions need to be made, only named members can provide input at that stage. - make sure to clarify this in the charter

• At least one, if not two public comment forums

• Reach out to the GAC and re-invite them (noting renewed committment to participate in community efforts following increase in GAC membership in ICG)

• Consider how to provide feedback to ICG on timeline (end of year deadline may not be feasible)
• Consider having input ready following ICANN meeting in Marrakech as a possible alternative - what are other possible milestones in interim timeframe? Consider providing that feedback to ICG.
• Should work on development of charter be done in parallel with initial work of CWG or does charter need to be approved first? Might be difficult for CWG to commence without charter nailed down. Maybe some of the administrative elements could be commenced earlier, but the substantive work can only begin once the charter has been approved.
• Staff to develop draft timeline for public consultations by next week's meeting

• The focus is on names but will not be limited exclusively to names. 
• Further comment on email list: 
  •     Accountability 
  •     Role of Maintainer