Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions
At 03/10/2015 07:13 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Milton is correct in that this is an issue that is both critical to the transition and not addressed by the CWG, and I believe not addressable solely by the CWG.
MM: I still don't understand why people here are asserting that this I "not addressable solely by the CWG." Future PTI/CANN/Verisign relationships are NOT part of the NTIA Cooperative Agreement with Verisign. Future PTI/CANN/Verisign relationships ARE one of the most critical parts of the IANA transition. Unless you want to have the US government involved permanently, those relationships have to be designed and set out by this CWG, based on its already-developed model (ICANN spinning off PTI into a separate subsidiary and Verisign staying in its current role as RZM).
What I (or anyone on the CWG or ICG) is not the issue. WE cannot unilaterally cancel the agreement between tow other parties, and if Verisign plans to do that, I have not been informed.
There are a two obvious possible ways the issue can be addressed:
1. The NTIA amends the Cooperative Agreement to require Verisign to publish changes submitted to it by IANA. Perhaps IANA would have to be added as a signatory to that agreement.
MM: In this "option," which I would contend is not a real option, the U.S. government becomes a permanent part of the contractual and administrative situation surrounding Root Zone maintenance. I submit that that is not acceptable to the world. Most of us have been operating under the assumption that the transition would end the privileged role of one government and turn the whole thing over to the 'global multistakeholder community.' If it is the USG, and only the USG, that requires Verisign to respect PTI, then we have not kept that promise.
None can be done without NTIA taking some action
MM: We have all known, from day one, that NTIA and NTIA alone can modify its Cooperative Agreement with Verisign. That does not mean, however, that CWG cannot come up with a proposal as to how ICANN and PTI relate to the Root Zone maintainer in the future. If the CWG doesn't do that job, it hasn't done its job. Once the CWG does that, the NTIA will know more about how to modify its Cooperative Agreement
I believe that the way forward is for the CWG Co-Chairs to contact the NTIA and ask for either information on how they plan to proceed so that we can take the appropriate steps (if any), or to confirm that the issue is, for the moment, fully under their control and that they will take the appropriate measures to ensure that the Root Zone Maintainer is properly contracted and instructed post-transition. With that information in hand, the CWG can confirm to the ICG that 1150, Section 2 is under control.
MM: I don't agree. Again, you are placing responsibility for designing a critical part of the post-transition root zone management regime in the hands of the NTIA. It does not belong there.
The CWG *HAS* laid out how this should unfold and it is documented in 1150, 2b. We have not drafted the contract, and I believe that without an indication from the NTIA as to how it will proceed, I believe that is premature. Alan
Alan, I still find your answers unsatisfying.
-----Original Message----- AG What I (or anyone on the CWG or ICG) is not the issue. WE cannot unilaterally cancel the agreement between tow other parties, and if Verisign plans to do that, I have not been informed.
Please stop knocking down straw men. No one is claiming that CWG can alter the Verisign Cooperative Agreement, and in fact there are several statements I have made and ICG has made recognizing that that part of the transition is in NTIA's hands. I see a tendency here to say that because NTIA must modify the CA, that CWG is absolved of the responsibility for designing the relationship between PTI, ICANN and whoever the RZM is.
The CWG *HAS* laid out how this should unfold and it is documented in 1150, 2b. We have not drafted the contract, and I believe that without an indication from the NTIA as to how it will proceed, I believe that is premature.
Does 1150 2b answer any of the following questions? - Does PTI contract with the RZM, or does ICANN? Or does someone else? - Who is the principal and who is the agent of this contract? - If ICANN is the principal, can it decide to give the contract to someone besides Verisign? On what time frame? On what criteria? - What are the basic terms/elements of this contract? Does the RZM get paid?
Milton, Are you advocating that the CWG should develop proposed answers to the questions you raised and I have copied here? "- Does PTI contract with the RZM, or does ICANN? Or does someone else? - Who is the principal and who is the agent of this contract? - If ICANN is the principal, can it decide to give the contract to someone besides Verisign? On what time frame? On what criteria? - What are the basic terms/elements of this contract? Does the RZM get paid?" Note that the third question may be out of scope for the CWG. Our charter says the following: "In respect of Function 2. ("Perform Administrative Functions Associated With Root Zone Management"), this process currently involves distinct roles performed by three different entities through two separate legal agreements: the Contractor as the IANA Functions Operator, NTIA as the Administrator, and VeriSign ('or any successor entity as designated by the U.S. Department of Commerce") as the Root Zone Maintainer. The accountability function currently performed by NTIA regarding the RZM role, as well as the discussion of the RZM management administrative interface currently used by NTIA are within the scope of the CWG. The issue of who performs the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed. . ." If I am correct on the scope, the charter can be changed but that would require approval of all the chartering organizations. For anything that is out of scope, the CWG could recommend that 'a subsequent effort' be initiated and could possibly provide guidelines/requirements for that effort. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:39 AM To: Alan Greenberg; Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions Alan, I still find your answers unsatisfying.
-----Original Message----- AG What I (or anyone on the CWG or ICG) is not the issue. WE cannot unilaterally cancel the agreement between tow other parties, and if Verisign plans to do that, I have not been informed.
Please stop knocking down straw men. No one is claiming that CWG can alter the Verisign Cooperative Agreement, and in fact there are several statements I have made and ICG has made recognizing that that part of the transition is in NTIA's hands. I see a tendency here to say that because NTIA must modify the CA, that CWG is absolved of the responsibility for designing the relationship between PTI, ICANN and whoever the RZM is.
The CWG *HAS* laid out how this should unfold and it is documented in 1150, 2b. We have not drafted the contract, and I believe that without an indication from the NTIA as to how it will proceed, I believe that is premature.
Does 1150 2b answer any of the following questions? - Does PTI contract with the RZM, or does ICANN? Or does someone else? - Who is the principal and who is the agent of this contract? - If ICANN is the principal, can it decide to give the contract to someone besides Verisign? On what time frame? On what criteria? - What are the basic terms/elements of this contract? Does the RZM get paid? _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
If we do consider these questions, I would suggest omitting the second question and rephrasing the third. I believe the references to "principal" and "agent" are incorrect. In a principal/agent relationship, the parties enter into an agreement whereby the agent can act for the principal to create binding legal agreements between the principal and third parties. An agency relationship must be set forth in an agreement (though that agreement can have other purposes besides creating the agency relationship). I'm virtually certain the CA is not an agency agreement, and I see no reason why any other agreement with the RZM would be an agency agreement. The Law of Agency (surprise!) governs such relationships. If the words "principal" and "agent" are being used loosely and not for the legal meaning above, I would suggest other terms be used to avoid confusion and to avoid any implication that the Law of Agency applies here. Perhaps "hiring party" and "contractor" if that is the sense in which these words are being used? Greg On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Milton,
Are you advocating that the CWG should develop proposed answers to the questions you raised and I have copied here?
"- Does PTI contract with the RZM, or does ICANN? Or does someone else? - Who is the principal and who is the agent of this contract? - If ICANN is the principal, can it decide to give the contract to someone besides Verisign? On what time frame? On what criteria? - What are the basic terms/elements of this contract? Does the RZM get paid?"
Note that the third question may be out of scope for the CWG. Our charter says the following: "In respect of Function 2. ("Perform Administrative Functions Associated With Root Zone Management"), this process currently involves distinct roles performed by three different entities through two separate legal agreements: the Contractor as the IANA Functions Operator, NTIA as the Administrator, and VeriSign ('or any successor entity as designated by the U.S. Department of Commerce") as the Root Zone Maintainer. The accountability function currently performed by NTIA regarding the RZM role, as well as the discussion of the RZM management administrative interface currently used by NTIA are within the scope of the CWG. The issue of who performs the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed. . ."
If I am correct on the scope, the charter can be changed but that would require approval of all the chartering organizations.
For anything that is out of scope, the CWG could recommend that 'a subsequent effort' be initiated and could possibly provide guidelines/requirements for that effort.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:39 AM To: Alan Greenberg; Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions
Alan,
I still find your answers unsatisfying.
-----Original Message----- AG What I (or anyone on the CWG or ICG) is not the issue. WE cannot unilaterally cancel the agreement between tow other parties, and if Verisign plans to do that, I have not been informed.
Please stop knocking down straw men. No one is claiming that CWG can alter the Verisign Cooperative Agreement, and in fact there are several statements I have made and ICG has made recognizing that that part of the transition is in NTIA's hands. I see a tendency here to say that because NTIA must modify the CA, that CWG is absolved of the responsibility for designing the relationship between PTI, ICANN and whoever the RZM is.
The CWG *HAS* laid out how this should unfold and it is documented in 1150, 2b. We have not drafted the contract, and I believe that without an indication from the NTIA as to how it will proceed, I believe that is premature.
Does 1150 2b answer any of the following questions? - Does PTI contract with the RZM, or does ICANN? Or does someone else? - Who is the principal and who is the agent of this contract? - If ICANN is the principal, can it decide to give the contract to someone besides Verisign? On what time frame? On what criteria? - What are the basic terms/elements of this contract? Does the RZM get paid?
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Yes. In economic and political theory, that is how we use the term principal and agent. Perhaps "hiring party" and "contractor" if that is the sense in which these words are being used? Greg On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Milton, Are you advocating that the CWG should develop proposed answers to the questions you raised and I have copied here? "- Does PTI contract with the RZM, or does ICANN? Or does someone else? - Who is the principal and who is the agent of this contract? - If ICANN is the principal, can it decide to give the contract to someone besides Verisign? On what time frame? On what criteria? - What are the basic terms/elements of this contract? Does the RZM get paid?" Note that the third question may be out of scope for the CWG. Our charter says the following: "In respect of Function 2. ("Perform Administrative Functions Associated With Root Zone Management"), this process currently involves distinct roles performed by three different entities through two separate legal agreements: the Contractor as the IANA Functions Operator, NTIA as the Administrator, and VeriSign ('or any successor entity as designated by the U.S. Department of Commerce") as the Root Zone Maintainer. The accountability function currently performed by NTIA regarding the RZM role, as well as the discussion of the RZM management administrative interface currently used by NTIA are within the scope of the CWG. The issue of who performs the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed. . ." If I am correct on the scope, the charter can be changed but that would require approval of all the chartering organizations. For anything that is out of scope, the CWG could recommend that 'a subsequent effort' be initiated and could possibly provide guidelines/requirements for that effort. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:39 AM To: Alan Greenberg; Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions Alan, I still find your answers unsatisfying.
-----Original Message----- AG What I (or anyone on the CWG or ICG) is not the issue. WE cannot unilaterally cancel the agreement between tow other parties, and if Verisign plans to do that, I have not been informed.
Please stop knocking down straw men. No one is claiming that CWG can alter the Verisign Cooperative Agreement, and in fact there are several statements I have made and ICG has made recognizing that that part of the transition is in NTIA's hands. I see a tendency here to say that because NTIA must modify the CA, that CWG is absolved of the responsibility for designing the relationship between PTI, ICANN and whoever the RZM is.
The CWG *HAS* laid out how this should unfold and it is documented in 1150, 2b. We have not drafted the contract, and I believe that without an indication from the NTIA as to how it will proceed, I believe that is premature.
Does 1150 2b answer any of the following questions? - Does PTI contract with the RZM, or does ICANN? Or does someone else? - Who is the principal and who is the agent of this contract? - If ICANN is the principal, can it decide to give the contract to someone besides Verisign? On what time frame? On what criteria? - What are the basic terms/elements of this contract? Does the RZM get paid? _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
By the way, Greg, when people speak different languages is perhaps a little rude to say that your language is “correct” and the other one is “incorrect.” They are different. I agree however that it is good to clear up any confusion between references based on institutional economics (principal-agent theory) and references based on a specific body of law that you happen to know about. For more info see this Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem) From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 2:41 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Mueller, Milton L; Alan Greenberg; Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions If we do consider these questions, I would suggest omitting the second question and rephrasing the third. I believe the references to "principal" and "agent" are incorrect. In a principal/agent relationship, the parties enter into an agreement whereby the agent can act for the principal to create binding legal agreements between the principal and third parties. An agency relationship must be set forth in an agreement (though that agreement can have other purposes besides creating the agency relationship). I'm virtually certain the CA is not an agency agreement, and I see no reason why any other agreement with the RZM would be an agency agreement. The Law of Agency (surprise!) governs such relationships. If the words "principal" and "agent" are being used loosely and not for the legal meaning above, I would suggest other terms be used to avoid confusion and to avoid any implication that the Law of Agency applies here. Perhaps "hiring party" and "contractor" if that is the sense in which these words are being used? Greg On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Milton, Are you advocating that the CWG should develop proposed answers to the questions you raised and I have copied here? "- Does PTI contract with the RZM, or does ICANN? Or does someone else? - Who is the principal and who is the agent of this contract? - If ICANN is the principal, can it decide to give the contract to someone besides Verisign? On what time frame? On what criteria? - What are the basic terms/elements of this contract? Does the RZM get paid?" Note that the third question may be out of scope for the CWG. Our charter says the following: "In respect of Function 2. ("Perform Administrative Functions Associated With Root Zone Management"), this process currently involves distinct roles performed by three different entities through two separate legal agreements: the Contractor as the IANA Functions Operator, NTIA as the Administrator, and VeriSign ('or any successor entity as designated by the U.S. Department of Commerce") as the Root Zone Maintainer. The accountability function currently performed by NTIA regarding the RZM role, as well as the discussion of the RZM management administrative interface currently used by NTIA are within the scope of the CWG. The issue of who performs the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed. . ." If I am correct on the scope, the charter can be changed but that would require approval of all the chartering organizations. For anything that is out of scope, the CWG could recommend that 'a subsequent effort' be initiated and could possibly provide guidelines/requirements for that effort. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:39 AM To: Alan Greenberg; Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions Alan, I still find your answers unsatisfying.
-----Original Message----- AG What I (or anyone on the CWG or ICG) is not the issue. WE cannot unilaterally cancel the agreement between tow other parties, and if Verisign plans to do that, I have not been informed.
Please stop knocking down straw men. No one is claiming that CWG can alter the Verisign Cooperative Agreement, and in fact there are several statements I have made and ICG has made recognizing that that part of the transition is in NTIA's hands. I see a tendency here to say that because NTIA must modify the CA, that CWG is absolved of the responsibility for designing the relationship between PTI, ICANN and whoever the RZM is.
The CWG *HAS* laid out how this should unfold and it is documented in 1150, 2b. We have not drafted the contract, and I believe that without an indication from the NTIA as to how it will proceed, I believe that is premature.
Does 1150 2b answer any of the following questions? - Does PTI contract with the RZM, or does ICANN? Or does someone else? - Who is the principal and who is the agent of this contract? - If ICANN is the principal, can it decide to give the contract to someone besides Verisign? On what time frame? On what criteria? - What are the basic terms/elements of this contract? Does the RZM get paid? _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Note that the third question may be out of scope for the CWG. Our charter says the following: "In respect of Function 2. ("Perform Administrative Functions Associated With Root Zone Management"), this process currently involves distinct roles performed by three different entities through two separate legal agreements: the Contractor as the IANA Functions Operator, NTIA as the Administrator, and VeriSign ('or any successor entity as designated by the U.S. Department of Commerce") as the Root Zone Maintainer. The accountability function currently performed by NTIA regarding the RZM role, as well as the discussion of the RZM management administrative interface currently used by NTIA are within the scope of the CWG. The issue of who performs the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed. . ."
Chuck: I interpret this part of the charter to mean that the CWG is going to stick with the current RZM (Verisign) and is not going to decide which particular firm or entity provides the RZM. I still think, however, that the CWG has to have some notion of how ICANN, PTI and RZM are related in the post-transition arrangements. In this regard, let me also call attention to the second RZM-related question you were asked by the ICG, regarding the separation of the roles of ICANN and RZM. Has that been dealt with? I am also surprised by the resistance I am getting to some of the suggestions I have been making here given the charter's clear statement that "The accountability function currently performed by NTIA regarding the RZM role...[is] within the scope of the CWG." I think that statement rather sinks Alan's claim that we have to rely on the NTIA to do that. --MM
I think we are getting closer to understanding how we should respond to the question. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:59 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Alan Greenberg; Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions
Note that the third question may be out of scope for the CWG. Our charter says the following: "In respect of Function 2. ("Perform Administrative Functions Associated With Root Zone Management"), this process currently involves distinct roles performed by three different entities through two separate legal agreements: the Contractor as the IANA Functions Operator, NTIA as the Administrator, and VeriSign ('or any successor entity as designated by the U.S. Department of Commerce") as the Root Zone Maintainer. The accountability function currently performed by NTIA regarding the RZM role, as well as the discussion of the RZM management administrative interface currently used by NTIA are within the scope of the CWG. The issue of who performs the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed. . ."
Chuck: I interpret this part of the charter to mean that the CWG is going to stick with the current RZM (Verisign) and is not going to decide which particular firm or entity provides the RZM. I still think, however, that the CWG has to have some notion of how ICANN, PTI and RZM are related in the post-transition arrangements. In this regard, let me also call attention to the second RZM-related question you were asked by the ICG, regarding the separation of the roles of ICANN and RZM. Has that been dealt with? I am also surprised by the resistance I am getting to some of the suggestions I have been making here given the charter's clear statement that "The accountability function currently performed by NTIA regarding the RZM role...[is] within the scope of the CWG." I think that statement rather sinks Alan's claim that we have to rely on the NTIA to do that. --MM
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan -
Mueller, Milton L