The RZM is not only dealt with in the Cooperative Agreement (which we do not need to cover in our work).  The IANA Contract deals with the relationship between the NTIA, ICANN and the RZM.  We need to take care of replacing that part of the IANA Contract.  Therefore, this DT is needed.

Greg

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

If there is the understanding of the 2 points below:
- That there is supposed to be another process that handles the relationship between NTIA & the root zone maintainer (which is not within the scope of CWG)
- That the relationship between NTIA & IANA is what the CWG is supposed to look into transitioning (which is what most DTs is expected to address)

Then I don't think there would be need for DT-F

I hope we are not fragmenting these DTs beyond defragmentation.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 16 Mar 2015 17:20, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all, 

On our last call, on Thursday, we noted an action to make a call for a DT-F lead. This DT is listed as a Priority 1 DT, so we would like to identify a lead and a working group as soon as possible. 

As a reminder, here is an excerpt about DT-F from the Status document on the Wiki: 

 

Design Team F

Relationship between the NTIA, IANA and the Root Zone Maintainer

Lead

TBC

Status

Step 0, Priority 1 (Provisional)

Note

 


Best, 
Grace

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship