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