Chuck, Similarly, given my role at ICANN, I feel a bit awkward in these discussions, however I will allow a bit of engineering pedantism to leak out: I'd suggest revising: "Instead, their proposal is about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transition, and not introduce any risk." To: "Instead, their proposal is about how to implement and test the logistical elimination of NTIA approvals at the moment of transition in order to minimize risk." Regards, -drc On 10/6/15, 9:41 AM, "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Gomes, Chuck" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

Regarding our response to question #1, here are some personal suggestions: 1. I think that the first part of our response as copied here is fine: ³The Verisign/ICANN proposal is not a vehicle for amending or replacing the Cooperative Agreement. Instead, their proposal is about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transition, and not introduce any risk. The Verisign/ICANN proposal addresses only paragraph 1150, Section 1. Section 2 has not, to the CWG-Stewardship¹s knowledge, been addressed.²

2. The co-chairs should send a letter to the NTIA as soon as possible seeking clarification. I attached some proposed elements of such a letter.

3. We should add to our response by noting that we have sent some questions to the NTIA.

4. We should discuss whether there are other actions that we should take pending responses from NTIA.

I always feel awkward discussing the Root Zone Maintainer function because I am a Verisign employee. In that regard, let me say that the above suggestions are strictly my own as a part of the CWG; I have not consulted with my Verisign colleagues on them.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 10:57 AM To: Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions

Dear All,

Please find attached an updated version which includes the proposed addition to paragraph 113 as suggested by Sidley for question 6, the edit to question 13 as suggested by Chuck and noting that the response to question 1 is still under discussion (if those that have been discussing this question on the list have a proposal to revise the draft response to reflect the feedback received, please share the proposed response with the list).

Best regards,

Marika

From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Thursday 1 October 2015 18:13 To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <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

Thanks David. It looks like your change was made in the version that Marika distributed today. Chuck From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 2:20 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Marika Konings; Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions Chuck, Similarly, given my role at ICANN, I feel a bit awkward in these discussions, however I will allow a bit of engineering pedantism to leak out: I'd suggest revising: "Instead, their proposal is about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transition, and not introduce any risk." To: "Instead, their proposal is about how to implement and test the logistical elimination of NTIA approvals at the moment of transition in order to minimize risk." Regards, -drc On 10/6/15, 9:41 AM, "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Gomes, Chuck" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Regarding our response to question #1, here are some personal suggestions: 1. I think that the first part of our response as copied here is fine: "The Verisign/ICANN proposal is not a vehicle for amending or replacing the Cooperative Agreement. Instead, their proposal is about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transition, and not introduce any risk. The Verisign/ICANN proposal addresses only paragraph 1150, Section 1. Section 2 has not, to the CWG-Stewardship's knowledge, been addressed." 2. The co-chairs should send a letter to the NTIA as soon as possible seeking clarification. I attached some proposed elements of such a letter. 3. We should add to our response by noting that we have sent some questions to the NTIA. 4. We should discuss whether there are other actions that we should take pending responses from NTIA. I always feel awkward discussing the Root Zone Maintainer function because I am a Verisign employee. In that regard, let me say that the above suggestions are strictly my own as a part of the CWG; I have not consulted with my Verisign colleagues on them. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 10:57 AM To: Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions Dear All, Please find attached an updated version which includes the proposed addition to paragraph 113 as suggested by Sidley for question 6, the edit to question 13 as suggested by Chuck and noting that the response to question 1 is still under discussion (if those that have been discussing this question on the list have a proposal to revise the draft response to reflect the feedback received, please share the proposed response with the list). Best regards, Marika From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Thursday 1 October 2015 18:13 To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <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