Regarding the first item on the Verisign/ICANN proposal: To quote from an analysis I did for the ALAC Transition Support group:

The document is an implementation of the implied recommendation of Design Team F that nothing be changed in the RZMS code prior to or during transition. It follows the golden rule that you should make as few changes at the same time as possible.

In my mind, this proposal carried that rule to a ridiculous extreme.

The proposal calls for an lot of work and expense to avoid making a relatively simple coding change that could be verified seventeen ways to Sunday. But yes, it does meeting the CWG requirements. Alan At 29/09/2015 09:57 AM, Marika Konings wrote:

Dear All,

In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared the attached table which provides a draft response for a number of the ICG questions which is intended to serve as a starting point for CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and share your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday.

Thanks,

Marika

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

List, Marika In advent of Thursdays meeting, please find below answers to ICG questions 3, 4 and 5, agreed upon by cc community representatives to the CWG With best regards Staffan Jonson Staffan Jonson, Senior Policy Adviser The Internet Foundation in Sweden (iis) BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM Tel. +46 8 452 35 74 | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67 staffan.jonson@iis.se twitter: @staffanjonson LinkedIn: se.linkedin.com/pub/staffan-jonson/4/574/a16/ On the 28th September, the ccTLD Registry members of the CWG held a call to welcome the opportunity to provide our responses to the ICG questions 3 to 5 which relate to the ccTLDs. Regarding question 3) We agree that paragraph 1027 could usefully be amended, replacing the last sentence with "The ICANN Board adopted the FOIWG recommendations in June 2015". Question 4) [Para 1036] References to documentation of policy development and dispute resolution processes (ccTLDs) › RFC1591: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt. › FOIWG Final Report: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-resolutions-11feb15-en.pdf. › Independent Review Panel (IRP): https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/irp-2012-02-25-en. › ICANN Ombudsman: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#AnnexB. › GAC Principles 2005: https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278844/ccTLD_Principles_0.pd.... Footnote: ICANN staff drafted two documents entitled "ICP-1" (May 1999) and "CCTLD News Memo #1" (23 October 1997) which were the source of significant friction between ICANN and the ccTLD community and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO). The ccNSO formally rejected the ICP-1 document (final report of the ccNSO's Delegation and Redelegation Working Group or DRDWG) arguing that it modified policy but did not meet the requirements for doing so at the time of its introduction in 1999. ICANN has accepted that ICP-1 and CCTLD News Memo #1 were not fit for purpose and have archived the documents. Question 5) The CWG has proposed (Annex F) an inclusive community group as the IANA Functions Review Team (IFRT) to periodically review (the first within 2 years; every five years thereafter) the performance of the IANA functions operator and to ascertain if there is a need to change IANA's statement of work. Text from the current document: "The IANA Function Review Team will be composed as follows: Group IFRT Members ccNSO 2 ccTLDs (non-ccNSO) 1 Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) 2 Registrar Stakeholder Group (RsSG) 1 Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) 1 Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) 1 Government Advisory Committee (GAC) 1 Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) 1 Root Server Operators Advisory Committee (RSSAC) 1 At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) 1 CSC Liaison 1 Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees, in accordance with their respective internally defined processes, will appoint individuals who have submitted Expressions of Interest. In the case of the non-ccNSO ccTLD representative, the ccNSO will be the appointing body; in appointing the non-ccNSO representative it is strongly recommended that the ccNSO also consult with the Regional ccTLD Organizations, namely AfTLD, APTLD, LACTLD, and CENTR". Consequently, (s)electing geographical diverse representatives to the IFRT is achievable. Further, the above composition ensures that the diverse user community is represented and respected in the IANA performance review. The ccNSO currently comprises 156 ccTLD Registry members out of a total of 254 ccTLD Registries, so there are a significant number of ccTLD Registries that are not members of the ccNSO for specific reasons. In addition, there may be current registry members of the ccNSO who may subsequently decide to leave the ccNSO and become non-ccNSO member ccTLD Registries. Respect for the diversity of the ccTLD community was appreciated and accommodated by the members of the CWG when preparing their proposal, making it a requirement that a single seat on the IFRT for non-ccNSO Registries be made a requirement. Further, the diversity of the ccTLD community was recognized by the ccNSO when the ccNSO Council unanimously approved CWG's proposal and also by the other chartering organizations each approving the proposal. After more than one year of public debate, two CWG consultations, community discussions (both on-line and in person) and the subsequent approval of the CWG Proposal by the respective chartering organisations; making such a fundamental change to the composition of the IFRT would be inappropriate. We wish to assure an important section of the ccTLD registry community of their right to be a member of the IFRT, and thereby uphold our core object of providing an inclusive non-discriminatory IFRT process. Consequently, there should be no change to the CWG's submission and the (s)election and composition of the IFRT membership should remain as described in the current document. Från: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] För Marika Konings Skickat: den 29 september 2015 15:57 Till: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Ämne: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions Dear All, In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared the attached table which provides a draft response for a number of the ICG questions which is intended to serve as a starting point for CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and share your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday. Thanks, Marika