Milton,

I think it is correct to answer ‘no’, but I do not necessarily think that that implies that the CWG or ICANN & Verisign are responsible for doing anything to produce a ‘yes’ answer. First of all, the root zone maintainer relationship is for the most part out of scope for the CWG. Second, in the way the ICG asked the question, it seems to assume that the Verisign/ICANN Proposal should meet “the CWG's requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the transition proposal.” I don’t think that necessarily follows.

I would agree with you that the requirements in ‘1150 (sections 2 and 3)’ need to be met but the fact that the CWG proposal identified them doesn’t mean that the CWG is the best entity to meet them. In fact, because of the unique nature of this situation, this might be a problem better solved by the ICG in its role.

Whether or not we refer to NTIA’s role in this is not a big issue with me, but the fact remains that they are involved.

Lest you think I am trying to defend Verisign in some way let me clarify that my thinking on this is strictly my personal response. I have not discussed it with anyone else in Verisign and I had absolutely no involvement in the development of the Verisign/ICANN proposal. As I communicated previously, I first saw the proposal the same time the rest of you did.

If the CWG thinks it is appropriate and wants to take on this responsibility, that is fine with me. We just need to figure out how we should do that.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 5:30 PM
To: Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

All:

I have looked over the proposed response to RZM question 1 and would have to reject what is proposed and offer this alternative.

No, the Verisign-ICANN proposal does not meet the requirements of 1150 Sections 2 and multiple annexes of the transition proposal, because it only addresses the NTIA authorization role and does not address the nature of the agreement that would be required to ensure that PTI's zone file modifications are implemented by Verisign.

The current draft asserts that only the NTIA can address the post-transition relationship between Verisign and PTI and ICANN. This is incorrect. It is true that only NTIA can modify the Cooperative Agreement with Verisign. But future Verisign-ICANN or PTI-Verisign relationships, contractual or otherwise, are not part of the cooperative agreement. NTIA cannot be suddenly given the responsibility of determining how ICANN, PTI and the RZM relate in the future, any more than we can ask it to define the nature of the CSC or the board structure of PTI. This seems obvious to me, perhaps others can explain why they think this critical part of the transition cannot be addressed by the CWG. I also find it interesting how the proposed response simply ignores the “multiple annexes of part 1” aspect of the request.

I realize that as an ICG member, being part of the body that posed the question, I am also proposing a response. But I am forced to do that because the proposed response really does not answer the question; indeed, it seems to be intent on avoiding it. And at this stage in the game, we want to avoid another round of questions that would inevitably occur if you fail to actually answer the question.

--MM

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 8:14 PM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

Dear all,

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

ACTIONS

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

Best,

Grace