Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore
Attached is a copy with a number of comments and suggested questions. Alan At 01/02/2015 12:40 PM, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the updated timeline.
Questions and comments welcome.
Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work.
Cheers.
B.
Hi, Among his comment Alan made the following:
Do we not also need a note saying that so far, we have not addressed .int. And perhaps also the RZM, to the extent that it is within our scope. Sub note: it would be good to have some clarity on exactly wat part of the RZM *IS* within our scope.
Strongly agree.
The proposal clearly called for the MRT to be incorporated, a clear difference from the intent in the Contract Co. model
I think there is still some discussion among proponents of the external trust model. I personally support the incorparation of the MRT as an association and see it as the guarantor, or whatever we call it, of the Trust. I do not think, however, that this was an essential part of the original proposal. So if something is added, it should not be definitive on the incorporation point - I think that sort of fine point is somewhat dependent on what we learn about the various legal regimes for Trusts and trust-like mechanisms.
I think that it very important to add that all of the Internal to ICANN models PRESUME that the CCWG-Accountability will be able to deliver iron-clad accountability measures to ensure that the MS community cannot be overruled by the ICANN Board.
I agree the absolute imperative of this for the Internal model is one of the major motivational differences with the External models. avri On 02-Feb-15 00:33, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Attached is a copy with a number of comments and suggested questions. Alan
At 01/02/2015 12:40 PM, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the updated timeline.
Questions and comments welcome.
Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work.
Cheers.
B.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
To be consistent with our charter, if we talk about the RZM, I think we should do so in the context of replacing NTIA's accountability with regard to the RZM. The drawback is that there doesn't seem to be much we can say without more input from NTIA, nor does it seem possible for community members to be able to provide much constructive input until that input is received. Maybe we should say something like this: "The CWG charter task of providing a replacement for NTIA's accountability role with regard to the RZM function is one that will need to be considered once more direction is given by NTIA." Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 5:27 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore Hi, Among his comment Alan made the following: Do we not also need a note saying that so far, we have not addressed .int. And perhaps also the RZM, to the extent that it is within our scope. Sub note: it would be good to have some clarity on exactly wat part of the RZM *IS* within our scope. Strongly agree. The proposal clearly called for the MRT to be incorporated, a clear difference from the intent in the Contract Co. model I think there is still some discussion among proponents of the external trust model. I personally support the incorparation of the MRT as an association and see it as the guarantor, or whatever we call it, of the Trust. I do not think, however, that this was an essential part of the original proposal. So if something is added, it should not be definitive on the incorporation point - I think that sort of fine point is somewhat dependent on what we learn about the various legal regimes for Trusts and trust-like mechanisms. I think that it very important to add that all of the Internal to ICANN models PRESUME that the CCWG-Accountability will be able to deliver iron-clad accountability measures to ensure that the MS community cannot be overruled by the ICANN Board. I agree the absolute imperative of this for the Internal model is one of the major motivational differences with the External models. avri On 02-Feb-15 00:33, Alan Greenberg wrote: Attached is a copy with a number of comments and suggested questions. Alan At 01/02/2015 12:40 PM, Bernard Turcotte wrote: All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the updated timeline. Questions and comments welcome. Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work. Cheers. B. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
To be consistent with our charter, if we talk about the RZM, I think we should do so in the context of replacing NTIA’s accountability with regard to the RZM. The drawback is that there doesn’t seem to be much we can say without more input from NTIA, nor does it seem possible for community members to be able to provide much constructive input until that input is received. Maybe we should say something like this: “The CWG charter task of providing a replacement for NTIA’s accountability role with regard to the RZM function is one that will need to be considered once more direction is given by NTIA.”
I agree with the suggested edit; based on the faq[1] released by NTIA it does seem there is going to be another process that will handle the RZM, which makes it quite unclear whether that is also a task of the CWG (not even at ICG level). I quote the relevant section below: *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.
One may need to clarify from the ICG how it intends to handle the RZM in relation to their scope of work. Regards 1. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-ro...
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2015 5:27 AM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore
Hi,
Among his comment Alan made the following:
Do we not also need a note saying that so far, we have not addressed .int. And perhaps also the RZM, to the extent that it is within our scope. Sub note: it would be good to have some clarity on exactly wat part of the RZM *IS* within our scope.
Strongly agree.
The proposal clearly called for the MRT to be incorporated, a clear difference from the intent in the Contract Co. model
I think there is still some discussion among proponents of the external trust model. I personally support the incorparation of the MRT as an association and see it as the guarantor, or whatever we call it, of the Trust. I do not think, however, that this was an essential part of the original proposal. So if something is added, it should not be definitive on the incorporation point - I think that sort of fine point is somewhat dependent on what we learn about the various legal regimes for Trusts and trust-like mechanisms.
I think that it very important to add that all of the Internal to ICANN models PRESUME that the CCWG-Accountability will be able to deliver iron-clad accountability measures to ensure that the MS community cannot be overruled by the ICANN Board.
I agree the absolute imperative of this for the Internal model is one of the major motivational differences with the External models.
avri
On 02-Feb-15 00:33, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Attached is a copy with a number of comments and suggested questions. Alan
At 01/02/2015 12:40 PM, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the updated timeline.
Questions and comments welcome.
Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work.
Cheers.
B.
_______________________________________________
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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
That is really _all_ you can say at this point. "The CWG charter task of providing a replacement for NTIA's accountability role with regard to the RZM function is one that will need to be considered once more direction is given by NTIA." Chuck
Dear colleagues, this is just to let you know of my support of all of Alan Greenberg's comments. I like the document as it currently stands since it reflects where we are today. I am just a little surprised of the Contract Co. model looking more and more like the creation of another ICANN. (since it appears to point towards hosting the CSC & MRT) Since there is so much opposition to creating another ICANN, that's pretty much discrediting the Contract Co. model altogether. Kindest regards, Olivier On 02/02/2015 00:33, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Attached is a copy with a number of comments and suggested questions. Alan
At 01/02/2015 12:40 PM, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the updated timeline.
Questions and comments welcome.
Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work.
Cheers.
B.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Alan, I think the second discussion question you provided has some promise: "A prime target if any IANA implementation is to ensure the stability and security of the DNS> How do you believe that the four proposal options support this need?" But I think the first one may be premature until we get legal advice and do some more work: ". For each of the four proposal models, indicate whether you strongly support or reject this proposal, and why." I think that will be a very good question to ask as part of the next public comment period regarding what options may be proposed then because we will have been able to incorporate the legal advice and hopefully fill in a lot of holes that still exist. I am very happy to see you proposing questions because in my view that is the main purpose of this exercise and the key task before we can finalize the document. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 6:34 PM To: Bernard Turcotte; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG - Draft Report for Singapore Attached is a copy with a number of comments and suggested questions. Alan At 01/02/2015 12:40 PM, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
All, please find attached the draft report for the Singapore meeting and the updated timeline.
Questions and comments welcome.
Jonathan and Lise would also like input on questions which could be added to this document which would provide useful feedback for our work.
Cheers.
B.
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Milton L Mueller -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Seun Ojedeji