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