Well you may note that I qualified my statement(by referencing IFO), my apologies for not specifically responding with the RZM in view. I think you are right that the entity that interacts with RZM can be pre-determined by the CWG. My concern however is that this could imply starting the parallel process referred to by NTIA since whatever entity we propose will actually be addressing the relationship with RZM one way or the other. Nevertheless, perhaps we can do it in readiness for the NTIA parallel process.

That said, if the CWG were to engage in that then I expect it would not involve drafting any mechanism/formalities between the IFO and RZM as that can't be defined if there is no direction from NTIA (who is the current interface between IFO and RZM).

Responding with RZM in view, I would expect that ICANN will be filling the role of NTIA as it concerns RZM. (Again this implies that NTIA has determined to pull out of the loop)

On 5 Oct 2015 18:08, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:

Seun, you’ve missed the point entirely. We are talking not about PTI-ICANN relations (which are indeed well-described in the proposal) but about how ICANN and/or PTI relates to the Root Zone Maintainer.

And I will say for the fourth time in this exchange, no one is proposing that the CWG initiate the process for the modification of the NTIA-Verisign cooperative agreement, which really has very little to do with how PTI or ICANN relate to the RZM in the future. All the NTIA can do is modify its CA to remove itself from the root zone modification process. That does not tell us much about how PTI/ICANN/Verisign relate to each other.

--MM

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com]

Here are some basic questions that need to be answered:
- Does PTI contract with the RZM, or does ICANN? Or does someone else?

According to the CWG proposal, PTI contract with ICANN as far as being IFO is concerned.

- Who is the principal and who is the agent of this contract?

ICANN will be principal and PTI will be agent again in the sense of PTI be IFO.

I think its important to just always remind NTIA that they are yet to initiate(clarify) the parallel process that would determine how the corporative agreement between NTIA/Verisign will go[1]. I don't think its within the CWG's scope to initiate that process and i believe that was also clear in the proposal. Its not even within ICANN's scope who is the convener of the transition process.

Regards
1. 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.

--MM

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

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!