Milton, I think it is correct to answer 'no', but I do not necessarily think that that implies that the CWG or ICANN & Verisign are responsible for doing anything to produce a 'yes' answer. First of all, the root zone maintainer relationship is for the most part out of scope for the CWG. Second, in the way the ICG asked the question, it seems to assume that the Verisign/ICANN Proposal should meet "the CWG's requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the transition proposal." I don't think that necessarily follows. I would agree with you that the requirements in '1150 (sections 2 and 3)' need to be met but the fact that the CWG proposal identified them doesn't mean that the CWG is the best entity to meet them. In fact, because of the unique nature of this situation, this might be a problem better solved by the ICG in its role. Whether or not we refer to NTIA's role in this is not a big issue with me, but the fact remains that they are involved. Lest you think I am trying to defend Verisign in some way let me clarify that my thinking on this is strictly my personal response. I have not discussed it with anyone else in Verisign and I had absolutely no involvement in the development of the Verisign/ICANN proposal. As I communicated previously, I first saw the proposal the same time the rest of you did. If the CWG thinks it is appropriate and wants to take on this responsibility, that is fine with me. We just need to figure out how we should do that. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 5:30 PM To: Grace Abuhamad; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Responses to ICG Questions All: I have looked over the proposed response to RZM question 1 and would have to reject what is proposed and offer this alternative. No, the Verisign-ICANN proposal does not meet the requirements of 1150 Sections 2 and multiple annexes of the transition proposal, because it only addresses the NTIA authorization role and does not address the nature of the agreement that would be required to ensure that PTI's zone file modifications are implemented by Verisign. The current draft asserts that only the NTIA can address the post-transition relationship between Verisign and PTI and ICANN. This is incorrect. It is true that only NTIA can modify the Cooperative Agreement with Verisign. But future Verisign-ICANN or PTI-Verisign relationships, contractual or otherwise, are not part of the cooperative agreement. NTIA cannot be suddenly given the responsibility of determining how ICANN, PTI and the RZM relate in the future, any more than we can ask it to define the nature of the CSC or the board structure of PTI. This seems obvious to me, perhaps others can explain why they think this critical part of the transition cannot be addressed by the CWG. I also find it interesting how the proposed response simply ignores the "multiple annexes of part 1" aspect of the request. I realize that as an ICG member, being part of the body that posed the question, I am also proposing a response. But I am forced to do that because the proposed response really does not answer the question; indeed, it seems to be intent on avoiding it. And at this stage in the game, we want to avoid another round of questions that would inevitably occur if you fail to actually answer the question. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 8:14 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto: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

ICG has been painfully clear that it will not solve problems itself.

A nice theory, but it has also been painfully clear since ICANN 50 in London, that would not happen like that. CW On 03 Oct 2015, at 04:15, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:14:19PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

...

I would agree with you that the requirements in '1150 (sections 2 and 3)' need to be met but the fact that the CWG proposal identified them doesn't mean that the CWG is the best entity to meet them. In fact, because of the unique nature of this situation, this might be a problem better solved by the ICG in its role.

The ICG has been painfully clear that it will not solve problems itself. Those problems are to be solved in the affected communities. I think this is an excellent principle, because if we're really supposed to be multi-stakeholder then the problems need to be resolved closest to the communities affected. The names community is the operational community affected by the root zone arrangements. So any policy questions ought to be hashed out here, not elsewhere.

I have no opinon on whether the text we have is adequate, but I support strongly the position that this WG and nowhere else is where the decision of adequacy needs to be reached.

A

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-----Original Message-----

Maybe I should have chosen a better word than 'solve': "this might be a problem better COORDINATED by the ICG in its role." It seems to me that it is exactly the ICG's role to collaborate with the parties involved and it seems clear that there are more parties than just the CWG.

I agree with Andrew Sullivan that the ICG cannot develop (or 'coordinate') a proposal about RZM. Our whole model for the transition was to allow each operational community (names, numbers protocols) to develop their own institutional arrangements, and we would look after their completeness, compatibility, workability, and achievement of consensus. There is no question that the issue we are discussing now is entirely a names operational community issue. It pertains to the contractual or other kind of relationship between ICANN as names policy maker, PTI as names IANA, and the names RZM. It's all about names. The only other relevant party is NTIA, and it's role is abundantly clear: it must modify the Verisign Cooperative Agreement in whatever way is required by the final names proposal. But CWG has to provide some kind of proposal regarding how PTI's root zone modifications are implemented by the RZM. Otherwise NTIA does not know what to do (or, worse, NTIA rather than the names community decides what to do, in ways that inevitably reflect USG interests and priorities rather than the interests and priorities of the global MScommunity). Here are some basic questions that need to be answered: - 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? At risk of being repetitive, let me say that CWG cannot just throw up its hands and say, "whatever touches Verisign is NTIA's problem, not ours." The RZM is a generic role that will outlive the NTIA cooperative agreement and possibly even Verisign. If the CWG has no idea how ICANN and PTI relate to the RZM structurally and permanently, it hasn't done its job. --MM

Seun, you’ve missed the point entirely. We are talking not about PTI-ICANN relations (which are indeed well-described in the proposal) but about how ICANN and/or PTI relates to the Root Zone Maintainer. And I will say for the fourth time in this exchange, no one is proposing that the CWG initiate the process for the modification of the NTIA-Verisign cooperative agreement, which really has very little to do with how PTI or ICANN relate to the RZM in the future. All the NTIA can do is modify its CA to remove itself from the root zone modification process. That does not tell us much about how PTI/ICANN/Verisign relate to each other. --MM From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Here are some basic questions that need to be answered: - Does PTI contract with the RZM, or does ICANN? Or does someone else? According to the CWG proposal, PTI contract with ICANN as far as being IFO is concerned. - Who is the principal and who is the agent of this contract? ICANN will be principal and PTI will be agent again in the sense of PTI be IFO. I think its important to just always remind NTIA that they are yet to initiate(clarify) the parallel process that would determine how the corporative agreement between NTIA/Verisign will go[1]. I don't think its within the CWG's scope to initiate that process and i believe that was also clear in the proposal. Its not even within ICANN's scope who is the convener of the transition process. Regards 1. 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. --MM _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!