This is looking very good to me. Thanks to everyone who contributed.
I think a very minor edit is needed in question 13: “In the composition of the IFR Team, there is a
role reserved for a CSC Liaison, which could, but it
is not required to, be the .ARPA domain.
”
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 8:14 PM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions
Following the call today, Marika and I have reviewed the responses to the ICG Questions and prepared a redline and clean version for your review. We received
some text from Alan Greenberg for the RZM questions and some text from Donna Austin for the .ARPA/CSC question. To summarize our edits, please refer to the notes from the call:
3. ICG Questions - review of draft responses
-
ICG sent two batches of questions which are presented in the document on screen. CWG has already provided answers to questions.
-
On RZM question #1: ICG misunderstood the NTIA/Versign proposal.
-
On RZM question #2: we have a Standing Panel to approve substantial changes. So the answer includes, community consultation, expert consultation, and Board approval. Refer to paragraph 155 in
the CWG Proposal (1155 in the ICG). Alan Greenberg: Proposed reply to Question 2: Both descriptions are correct but incomplete. The full answer is addressed in paragraph ICG 1155 (CWG 155). A change in the responsibilities of the IANA Functions Operator
and the Root Zone Maintainer is clearly a substantial architectual and operational change, and is therefore subject to a review of the standing review committee and ultimately ICANN Board approval. Subsection 5 of paragraph 155/1155 requires consultation
through an ICANN Public Comment Process.
-
On ccTLD questions #3, #4, #5: These were drafted by the ccTLD members/participants. No comments or concerns. Thank you ccTLD members/participants.
-
On PTI question #6: complete. no comments
-
On PTI question #7: Clarify text referring to "Community Mechanism" since the CCWG-Accountability is currently working this out. Additional clarfications listed in action item.
-
On PTI question #8: no comments other than cross-checking with implementation.
-
On PTI question #9: PTI Board is responsible, but there is also recourse to the ICANN Board. Confirm with lawyers
-
On questions #10, #11, #12 on scope: no comments
-
On question #13: representative of IAB or appointed person will be involved in process.
Summary of current status on ICG questions
-
Further work needed on questions #1, #2, #7, #9, #13
-
Provisionally closed questions: #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #10, #11, #12
-
Action(staff): update Question #1 text on RZM with latest sent to list (by Alan)
-
Action(staff): update question #2 per notes
-
Action(staff): incorporate Christopher's input (and any other input received) where
appropriate
-
Action(staff): Clarify text referring to "Community Mechanism" (perhaps by capitalizing
the word Mechanism to refer to structure and by making a direct reference to the CCWG-Accountability). Add "in the event that there is divergence between the Board and the Community on an IFR decision/recommendation, the Community will be able to rely on other
mechanisms that are being developed by the CCWG."
-
Action(staff): update question #9 to include recourse to ICANN Board.
-
Action(Chairs): run updated answer to question #9 by the lawyers
-
Action(staff): staff to draft response to #13