Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803" X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
Dear Co-Chairs/all,
Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I probably may have been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-)
Just a few clarification question/comments:
- What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the charter does not seem to include description.
It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee
- I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and don't see reference to "RZERC", what part of the ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this implementing?
The name is new. The committee is described in paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think.
- I note that review of charter every 5 years is indicated, but there seem to be no room to modify the charter in situations requiring urgent need.
The 5 years is a mandatory review.
- There is no process of replacing members indicated.
There is similarly no process for formally naming them. It is up to the appointing body (they all come from somewhere specific).
- What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going to be applicable to PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC
ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself)
- Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC?
It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of approving substantive changes in the RZ architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis.
- Who funds the activities of the RZERC?
To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN.
- Renumeration of the group is not explicitly indicated in the charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group?
They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid.
- What will be the connection between RZERC and PTI board (since they will be more closer to IANA than ICANN board post-transition) since it seem this group reports/works with ICANN board?
No connection. The PTI Board oversees the physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports. Alan
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" <<mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu>Fuhr@etno.eu> wrote:
Dear CWG,
Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. We would like to receive your comments at 17 May at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week review period). We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Thanks, that's helpful (especially the funding part) Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 11:53 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803" X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
Dear Co-Chairs/all,
Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I probably may have been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-)
Just a few clarification question/comments:
- What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the charter does not seem to include description.
It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee
- I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and don't see reference to "RZERC", what part of the ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this implementing?
The name is new. The committee is described in paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think.
- I note that review of charter every 5 years is indicated, but there seem to be no room to modify the charter in situations requiring urgent need.
The 5 years is a mandatory review.
- There is no process of replacing members indicated.
There is similarly no process for formally naming them. It is up to the appointing body (they all come from somewhere specific).
- What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going to be applicable to PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC
ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself)
- Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC?
It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of approving substantive changes in the RZ architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis.
- Who funds the activities of the RZERC?
To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN.
- Renumeration of the group is not explicitly indicated in the charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group?
They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid.
- What will be the connection between RZERC and PTI board (since they will be more closer to IANA than ICANN board post-transition) since it seem this group reports/works with ICANN board?
No connection. The PTI Board oversees the physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports.
Alan
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" <Fuhr@etno.eu> wrote:
Dear CWG,
Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. We would like to receive your comments at 17 May at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week review period). We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
My comments and suggestion s are imbedded in the attached document. -ed
Dear all, Kindly find attached a document that contains my comments, and proposed edits. Regards On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, that's helpful (especially the funding part)
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 11:53 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803" X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
Dear Co-Chairs/all,
Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I probably may have been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-)
Just a few clarification question/comments:
- What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the charter does not seem to include description.
It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee
- I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and don't see reference to "RZERC", what part of the ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this implementing?
The name is new. The committee is described in paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think.
- I note that review of charter every 5 years is indicated, but there seem to be no room to modify the charter in situations requiring urgent need.
The 5 years is a mandatory review.
- There is no process of replacing members indicated.
There is similarly no process for formally naming them. It is up to the appointing body (they all come from somewhere specific).
- What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going to be applicable to PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC
ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself)
- Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC?
It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of approving substantive changes in the RZ architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis.
- Who funds the activities of the RZERC?
To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN.
- Renumeration of the group is not explicitly indicated in the charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group?
They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid.
- What will be the connection between RZERC and PTI board (since they will be more closer to IANA than ICANN board post-transition) since it seem this group reports/works with ICANN board?
No connection. The PTI Board oversees the physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports.
Alan
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" <Fuhr@etno.eu> wrote:
Dear CWG,
Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. We would like to receive your comments at 17 May at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week review period). We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
_______________________________________________ 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>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Seun, One of the points that I believe was strongly supported by the IOTF members is that the terms of the RZERC charter should be relatively light so that the group itself has reasonable freedom to decide much of its own processes and procedures. I think many of your suggested edits may be more prescriptive than necessary for this committee, keeping in mind that it is not a decision-making body but rather an advisory body. That said, I am sure your suggestions will be considered. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 2:14 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review Dear all, Kindly find attached a document that contains my comments, and proposed edits. Regards On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks, that's helpful (especially the funding part) Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 11:53 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803" X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= Dear Co-Chairs/all, Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I probably may have been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-) Just a few clarification question/comments: - What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the charter does not seem to include description. It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee - I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and don't see reference to "RZERC", what part of the ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this implementing? The name is new. The committee is described in paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think. - I note that review of charter every 5 years is indicated, but there seem to be no room to modify the charter in situations requiring urgent need. The 5 years is a mandatory review. - There is no process of replacing members indicated. There is similarly no process for formally naming them. It is up to the appointing body (they all come from somewhere specific). - What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going to be applicable to PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself) - Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC? It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of approving substantive changes in the RZ architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis. - Who funds the activities of the RZERC? To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN. - Renumeration of the group is not explicitly indicated in the charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group? They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid. - What will be the connection between RZERC and PTI board (since they will be more closer to IANA than ICANN board post-transition) since it seem this group reports/works with ICANN board? No connection. The PTI Board oversees the physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports. Alan Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" <Fuhr@etno.eu<mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu>> wrote: Dear CWG, Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. We would like to receive your comments at 17 May at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week review period). We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= _______________________________________________ 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!
I agree with Chuck, I think the charter as it stands provides a sufficient base to form the group and doesn’t need any additional changes. As the group defines its own procedures nd methods of work it can add as much as it needs imo -jg From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Sunday 8 May 2016 at 15:13 To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review Seun, One of the points that I believe was strongly supported by the IOTF members is that the terms of the RZERC charter should be relatively light so that the group itself has reasonable freedom to decide much of its own processes and procedures. I think many of your suggested edits may be more prescriptive than necessary for this committee, keeping in mind that it is not a decision-making body but rather an advisory body. That said, I am sure your suggestions will be considered. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 2:14 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review Dear all, Kindly find attached a document that contains my comments, and proposed edits. Regards On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks, that's helpful (especially the funding part) Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 11:53 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803" X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= Dear Co-Chairs/all, Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I probably may have been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-) Just a few clarification question/comments: - What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the charter does not seem to include description. It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee - I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and don't see reference to "RZERC", what part of the ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this implementing? The name is new. The committee is described in paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think. - I note that review of charter every 5 years is indicated, but there seem to be no room to modify the charter in situations requiring urgent need. The 5 years is a mandatory review. - There is no process of replacing members indicated. There is similarly no process for formally naming them. It is up to the appointing body (they all come from somewhere specific). - What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going to be applicable to PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself) - Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC? It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of approving substantive changes in the RZ architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis. - Who funds the activities of the RZERC? To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN. - Renumeration of the group is not explicitly indicated in the charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group? They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid. - What will be the connection between RZERC and PTI board (since they will be more closer to IANA than ICANN board post-transition) since it seem this group reports/works with ICANN board? No connection. The PTI Board oversees the physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports. Alan Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" <Fuhr@etno.eu<mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu>> wrote: Dear CWG, Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. We would like to receive your comments at 17 May at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week review period). We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= _______________________________________________ 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!
Hi Chuck, Thanks for your response, the intent is not to make things heavy for the group but rather to include some points that I thought were basic. While this is an advisory group, it's an important one and it's operating principles/procedures needs to be less ad-hoc as much as possible, but I will have no major concern if my edits/comments were not finally taken. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 8 May 2016 15:13, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Seun,
One of the points that I believe was strongly supported by the IOTF members is that the terms of the RZERC charter should be relatively light so that the group itself has reasonable freedom to decide much of its own processes and procedures. I think many of your suggested edits may be more prescriptive than necessary for this committee, keeping in mind that it is not a decision-making body but rather an advisory body.
That said, I am sure your suggestions will be considered.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Sunday, May 08, 2016 2:14 AM *To:* Alan Greenberg *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
Dear all,
Kindly find attached a document that contains my comments, and proposed edits.
Regards
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, that's helpful (especially the funding part)
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 3 May 2016 11:53 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803" X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
Dear Co-Chairs/all,
Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I probably may have been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-)
Just a few clarification question/comments:
- What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the charter does not seem to include description.
It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee
- I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and don't see reference to "RZERC", what part of the ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this implementing?
The name is new. The committee is described in paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think.
- I note that review of charter every 5 years is indicated, but there seem to be no room to modify the charter in situations requiring urgent need.
The 5 years is a mandatory review.
- There is no process of replacing members indicated.
There is similarly no process for formally naming them. It is up to the appointing body (they all come from somewhere specific).
- What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going to be applicable to PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC
ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself)
- Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC?
It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of approving substantive changes in the RZ architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis.
- Who funds the activities of the RZERC?
To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN.
- Renumeration of the group is not explicitly indicated in the charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group?
They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid.
- What will be the connection between RZERC and PTI board (since they will be more closer to IANA than ICANN board post-transition) since it seem this group reports/works with ICANN board?
No connection. The PTI Board oversees the physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports.
Alan
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" <Fuhr@etno.eu> wrote:
Dear CWG,
Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. We would like to receive your comments at 17 May at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week review period). We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: * *http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> **Mobile: +2348035233535 <%2B2348035233535>* *alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Two important observations I would make: 1. It is clear that whoever drafted the RZERC charter has reverted to the legacy mindset of a single IANA Functions Operator for names, numbers and protocols. The composition of the group, for example, does not distinguish between the IFO for names and the IFO for protocols and numbers. Let me remind everyone that the Root Zone (RZ) that ICANN will contract for management of and which this RZERC will consider is a NAMES function only. Therefore it is unclear to me why ASO is included on this body and the management of numbers “root” has very little if any connection to the architecture and operation of the RZM. 2. Another issue that seems to be overlooked is that going forward, RZM will be a paid contractor of ICANN, therefore the incumbent RZM might be considered to have a conflict of interest in RZERC consultations with ICANN about the RZM contract terms and conditions. On the other hand, we certainly do want the incumbent RZM to be a part of this committee because of the operational knowledge it would bring to bear. So their role should be circumscribed appropriately; e.g., the incumbent RZM contractor should not chair the committee and any definition of “consensus” should not allow an incumbent RZM to block recommendations pertaining to its own role or contract. A not-so important but funny observation: Seun’s modifications referred to “expenses incurred in the curse of carrying out their services” From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2016 2:14 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review Dear all, Kindly find attached a document that contains my comments, and proposed edits. Regards On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks, that's helpful (especially the funding part) Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 11:53 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803" X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= Dear Co-Chairs/all, Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I probably may have been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-) Just a few clarification question/comments: - What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the charter does not seem to include description. It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee - I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and don't see reference to "RZERC", what part of the ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this implementing? The name is new. The committee is described in paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think. - I note that review of charter every 5 years is indicated, but there seem to be no room to modify the charter in situations requiring urgent need. The 5 years is a mandatory review. - There is no process of replacing members indicated. There is similarly no process for formally naming them. It is up to the appointing body (they all come from somewhere specific). - What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going to be applicable to PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself) - Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC? It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of approving substantive changes in the RZ architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis. - Who funds the activities of the RZERC? To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN. - Renumeration of the group is not explicitly indicated in the charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group? They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid. - What will be the connection between RZERC and PTI board (since they will be more closer to IANA than ICANN board post-transition) since it seem this group reports/works with ICANN board? No connection. The PTI Board oversees the physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports. Alan Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" <Fuhr@etno.eu<mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu>> wrote: Dear CWG, Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. We would like to receive your comments at 17 May at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week review period). We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= _______________________________________________ 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!
Milton: 1. Absolutely disagree 2. Strongly agree. Explanation available next week if required. CW On 08 May 2016, at 17:37, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Two important observations I would make:
1. It is clear that whoever drafted the RZERC charter has reverted to the legacy mindset of a single IANA Functions Operator for names, numbers and protocols. The composition of the group, for example, does not distinguish between the IFO for names and the IFO for protocols and numbers. Let me remind everyone that the Root Zone (RZ) that ICANN will contract for management of and which this RZERC will consider is a NAMES function only. Therefore it is unclear to me why ASO is included on this body and the management of numbers “root” has very little if any connection to the architecture and operation of the RZM.
2. Another issue that seems to be overlooked is that going forward, RZM will be a paid contractor of ICANN, therefore the incumbent RZM might be considered to have a conflict of interest in RZERC consultations with ICANN about the RZM contract terms and conditions. On the other hand, we certainly do want the incumbent RZM to be a part of this committee because of the operational knowledge it would bring to bear. So their role should be circumscribed appropriately; e.g., the incumbent RZM contractor should not chair the committee and any definition of “consensus” should not allow an incumbent RZM to block recommendations pertaining to its own role or contract.
A not-so important but funny observation: Seun’s modifications referred to “expenses incurred in the curse of carrying out their services”
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2016 2:14 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
Dear all,
Kindly find attached a document that contains my comments, and proposed edits.
Regards
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks, that's helpful (especially the funding part)
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 3 May 2016 11:53 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803" X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
Dear Co-Chairs/all,
Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I probably may have been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-)
Just a few clarification question/comments:
- What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the charter does not seem to include description.
It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee
- I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and don't see reference to "RZERC", what part of the ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this implementing?
The name is new. The committee is described in paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think.
- I note that review of charter every 5 years is indicated, but there seem to be no room to modify the charter in situations requiring urgent need.
The 5 years is a mandatory review.
- There is no process of replacing members indicated.
There is similarly no process for formally naming them. It is up to the appointing body (they all come from somewhere specific).
- What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going to be applicable to PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC
ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself)
- Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC?
It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of approving substantive changes in the RZ architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis.
- Who funds the activities of the RZERC?
To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN.
- Renumeration of the group is not explicitly indicated in the charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group?
They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid.
- What will be the connection between RZERC and PTI board (since they will be more closer to IANA than ICANN board post-transition) since it seem this group reports/works with ICANN board?
No connection. The PTI Board oversees the physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports.
Alan
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" <Fuhr@etno.eu> wrote:
Dear CWG,
Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. We would like to receive your comments at 17 May at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week review period). We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
+1 on both counts! on point 2, I expect that the "conflict policy" document referred to in the charter will make this clarification. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 8 May 2016 5:07 p.m., "Christopher Wilkinson" < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Milton:
1. Absolutely disagree
2. Strongly agree.
Explanation available next week if required.
CW
On 08 May 2016, at 17:37, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Two important observations I would make:
1. It is clear that whoever drafted the RZERC charter has reverted to the legacy mindset of a single IANA Functions Operator for names, numbers and protocols. The composition of the group, for example, does not distinguish between the IFO for names and the IFO for protocols and numbers. Let me remind everyone that the Root Zone (RZ) that ICANN will contract for management of and which this RZERC will consider is a NAMES function only. Therefore it is unclear to me why ASO is included on this body and the management of numbers “root” has very little if any connection to the architecture and operation of the RZM.
2. Another issue that seems to be overlooked is that going forward, RZM will be a paid contractor of ICANN, therefore the incumbent RZM might be considered to have a conflict of interest in RZERC consultations with ICANN about the RZM contract terms and conditions. On the other hand, we certainly do want the incumbent RZM to be a part of this committee because of the operational knowledge it would bring to bear. So their role should be circumscribed appropriately; e.g., the incumbent RZM contractor should not chair the committee and any definition of “consensus” should not allow an incumbent RZM to block recommendations pertaining to its own role or contract.
A not-so important but funny observation: Seun’s modifications referred to “expenses incurred in the curse of carrying out their services”
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg- stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Sunday, May 8, 2016 2:14 AM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
Dear all,
Kindly find attached a document that contains my comments, and proposed edits. Regards
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, that's helpful (especially the funding part)
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 11:53 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803" X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
Dear Co-Chairs/all,
Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I probably may have been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-)
Just a few clarification question/comments:
- What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the charter does not seem to include description.
It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee
- I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and don't see reference to "RZERC", what part of the ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this implementing?
The name is new. The committee is described in paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think.
- I note that review of charter every 5 years is indicated, but there seem to be no room to modify the charter in situations requiring urgent need.
The 5 years is a mandatory review.
- There is no process of replacing members indicated.
There is similarly no process for formally naming them. It is up to the appointing body (they all come from somewhere specific).
- What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going to be applicable to PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC
ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself)
- Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC?
It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of approving substantive changes in the RZ architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis.
- Who funds the activities of the RZERC?
To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN.
- Renumeration of the group is not explicitly indicated in the charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group?
They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid.
- What will be the connection between RZERC and PTI board (since they will be more closer to IANA than ICANN board post-transition) since it seem this group reports/works with ICANN board?
No connection. The PTI Board oversees the physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports.
Alan
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" <Fuhr@etno.eu> wrote:
Dear CWG,
Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. We would like to receive your comments at 17 May at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week review period). We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
_______________________________________________ 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 <%2B2348035233535>* *alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Milton, You seem to be assuming that the RZERC is an advisory committee for PTI. That is not my understanding. It was proposed as part of the CWG recommendations to fulfill what NTIA now does when architectural or other technical changes are considered for root zone management. Any such changes are definitely not restricted to names. Chuck Sent from my iPhone On May 8, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: Two important observations I would make: 1. It is clear that whoever drafted the RZERC charter has reverted to the legacy mindset of a single IANA Functions Operator for names, numbers and protocols. The composition of the group, for example, does not distinguish between the IFO for names and the IFO for protocols and numbers. Let me remind everyone that the Root Zone (RZ) that ICANN will contract for management of and which this RZERC will consider is a NAMES function only. Therefore it is unclear to me why ASO is included on this body and the management of numbers “root” has very little if any connection to the architecture and operation of the RZM. 2. Another issue that seems to be overlooked is that going forward, RZM will be a paid contractor of ICANN, therefore the incumbent RZM might be considered to have a conflict of interest in RZERC consultations with ICANN about the RZM contract terms and conditions. On the other hand, we certainly do want the incumbent RZM to be a part of this committee because of the operational knowledge it would bring to bear. So their role should be circumscribed appropriately; e.g., the incumbent RZM contractor should not chair the committee and any definition of “consensus” should not allow an incumbent RZM to block recommendations pertaining to its own role or contract. A not-so important but funny observation: Seun’s modifications referred to “expenses incurred in the curse of carrying out their services” From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2016 2:14 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review Dear all, Kindly find attached a document that contains my comments, and proposed edits. Regards On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks, that's helpful (especially the funding part) Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 11:53 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803" X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= Dear Co-Chairs/all, Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I probably may have been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-) Just a few clarification question/comments: - What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the charter does not seem to include description. It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee - I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and don't see reference to "RZERC", what part of the ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this implementing? The name is new. The committee is described in paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think. - I note that review of charter every 5 years is indicated, but there seem to be no room to modify the charter in situations requiring urgent need. The 5 years is a mandatory review. - There is no process of replacing members indicated. There is similarly no process for formally naming them. It is up to the appointing body (they all come from somewhere specific). - What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going to be applicable to PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself) - Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC? It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of approving substantive changes in the RZ architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis. - Who funds the activities of the RZERC? To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN. - Renumeration of the group is not explicitly indicated in the charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group? They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid. - What will be the connection between RZERC and PTI board (since they will be more closer to IANA than ICANN board post-transition) since it seem this group reports/works with ICANN board? No connection. The PTI Board oversees the physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports. Alan Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" <Fuhr@etno.eu<mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu>> wrote: Dear CWG, Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. We would like to receive your comments at 17 May at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week review period). We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= _______________________________________________ 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! _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
My understanding is in line with Chuck's. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 08 May 2016 17:38 To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review Milton, You seem to be assuming that the RZERC is an advisory committee for PTI. That is not my understanding. It was proposed as part of the CWG recommendations to fulfill what NTIA now does when architectural or other technical changes are considered for root zone management. Any such changes are definitely not restricted to names. Chuck Sent from my iPhone On May 8, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: Two important observations I would make: 1. It is clear that whoever drafted the RZERC charter has reverted to the legacy mindset of a single IANA Functions Operator for names, numbers and protocols. The composition of the group, for example, does not distinguish between the IFO for names and the IFO for protocols and numbers. Let me remind everyone that the Root Zone (RZ) that ICANN will contract for management of and which this RZERC will consider is a NAMES function only. Therefore it is unclear to me why ASO is included on this body and the management of numbers "root" has very little if any connection to the architecture and operation of the RZM. 2. Another issue that seems to be overlooked is that going forward, RZM will be a paid contractor of ICANN, therefore the incumbent RZM might be considered to have a conflict of interest in RZERC consultations with ICANN about the RZM contract terms and conditions. On the other hand, we certainly do want the incumbent RZM to be a part of this committee because of the operational knowledge it would bring to bear. So their role should be circumscribed appropriately; e.g., the incumbent RZM contractor should not chair the committee and any definition of "consensus" should not allow an incumbent RZM to block recommendations pertaining to its own role or contract. A not-so important but funny observation: Seun's modifications referred to "expenses incurred in the curse of carrying out their services" From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2016 2:14 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review Dear all, Kindly find attached a document that contains my comments, and proposed edits. Regards On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks, that's helpful (especially the funding part) Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 11:53 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803" X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= Dear Co-Chairs/all, Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I probably may have been lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-) Just a few clarification question/comments: - What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the charter does not seem to include description. It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee - I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and don't see reference to "RZERC", what part of the ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this implementing? The name is new. The committee is described in paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think. - I note that review of charter every 5 years is indicated, but there seem to be no room to modify the charter in situations requiring urgent need. The 5 years is a mandatory review. - There is no process of replacing members indicated. There is similarly no process for formally naming them. It is up to the appointing body (they all come from somewhere specific). - What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going to be applicable to PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself) - Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC? It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of approving substantive changes in the RZ architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis. - Who funds the activities of the RZERC? To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN. - Renumeration of the group is not explicitly indicated in the charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group? They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid. - What will be the connection between RZERC and PTI board (since they will be more closer to IANA than ICANN board post-transition) since it seem this group reports/works with ICANN board? No connection. The PTI Board oversees the physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports. Alan Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" <Fuhr@etno.eu<mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu>> wrote: Dear CWG, Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. We would like to receive your comments at 17 May at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week review period). We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs= _______________________________________________ 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! _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] You seem to be assuming that the RZERC is an advisory committee for PTI. That is not my understanding. MM: Advisory committee for PTI? No. But confined to names in its scope? Yes. It has always been conceived that way. Alan is completely wrong that this committee was ever intended to be something that reviews the "architecture" of all the IANA functions. It has always been focused on the names root zone, which involves not just names IANA, but also the root server operators, the RZM contractor, ICANN, and the rest of the names community. It was proposed as part of the CWG recommendations to fulfill what NTIA now does when architectural or other technical changes are considered for root zone management. Any such changes are definitely not restricted to names. MM: Sorry, Chuck I am not buying this. Insofar as we are talking about root zone management, we are talking about names. There is no "root zone" for numbers or protocols. MM: Further the NTIA did not have any authority over the "architecture" of all the IANA functions in toto. Even if they had in the past, by making the decision to have separate communities (names, numbers and protocols) develop their own proposals for the transition of their part of the IANA functions, we ended that centralization and recognized the ability of each community to select its own IFO. ICANN and this proposed RZERC are ONLY in a position to revamp names architecture. This proposal has to be amended to reflect that clearly, both in its composition and in its charter.
Hi, On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 10:15:05PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
MM: Sorry, Chuck I am not buying this. Insofar as we are talking about root zone management, we are talking about names. There is no "root zone" for numbers or protocols.
While I think we agree about the limited remit of this committee, it's also true that the whole Internet has a stake in the sorts of changes it is supposed to be looking at. In particular, I think all the OCs are likely to have something relevant to say. The canonical example was DNSSEC signing of the root zone. That doesn't just affect the DNS root, because there are big consequences for number resources (because of the reverse tree -- under arpa, of course, whose policy oversight lives with the IAB, but still) and for the IETF (because if there are problems with the protocol, that's where the changes are going to be made, and if there are BCPs to be delivered that's where they're going to have to be delivered). Given that the whole thing just advises the Board and can be reconstituted later if need be, I'm not too exercised about including a reasonably wide group of people. Also, of course, we should hope that the sorts of innovations that might involve this group would be relatively rare. But, for instance, there's current work afoot to rename all the root servers to give a little more room in the DNS priming query; and I'd like to believe that we all think maximal co-operation in making those sorts of changes is the sort of thing we can count on. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-----Original Message----- Given that the whole thing just advises the Board and can be reconstituted later if need be, I'm not too exercised about including a reasonably wide group of people. Also, of course, we should hope that the sorts of innovations that might involve this group would be relatively rare. But, for instance, there's current work afoot to rename all the root servers to give a little more room in the DNS priming query; and I'd like to believe that we all think maximal co- operation in making those sorts of changes is the sort of thing we can count on.
Yes, absolutely, any major change in the names RZ operations needs to have input from numbers and the IETF. I have no problem with broader inclusion within the committee. I do, however, want to see the remit of this committee clearly restricted to the names. It seemed to me from the initial reading that there was still confusion about this (and these concerns were amply borne out). --MM
I wonder if we should let the numbers and protocol communities decide how they would like this to happen. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 9:53 PM To: Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
-----Original Message----- Given that the whole thing just advises the Board and can be reconstituted later if need be, I'm not too exercised about including a reasonably wide group of people. Also, of course, we should hope that the sorts of innovations that might involve this group would be relatively rare. But, for instance, there's current work afoot to rename all the root servers to give a little more room in the DNS priming query; and I'd like to believe that we all think maximal co- operation in making those sorts of changes is the sort of thing we can count on.
Yes, absolutely, any major change in the names RZ operations needs to have input from numbers and the IETF. I have no problem with broader inclusion within the committee. I do, however, want to see the remit of this committee clearly restricted to the names. It seemed to me from the initial reading that there was still confusion about this (and these concerns were amply borne out). --MM _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 8 May 2016 4:37 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
A not-so important but funny observation: Seun’s modifications referred
to “expenses incurred in the curse of carrying out their services”
SO: Thanks for picking that "course" was definitely intended ;-) Cheers!
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2016 2:14 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
Dear all,
Kindly find attached a document that contains my comments, and proposed edits.
Regards
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, that's helpful (especially the funding part)
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 3 May 2016 11:53 p.m., "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
wrote:
At 03/05/2016 06:21 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="047d7b67048f2cc5610531f78803"
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
Dear Co-Chairs/all,
Looking at the acronym "RZERC" makes me feel I probably may have been
lagging behind with happenings within the CWG. ;-)
Just a few clarification question/comments:
- What is RZERC(I assume it's an acronym) as the charter does not seem
to include description.
It stands for the Root Zone Evolution Review Committee
- I did a quick find on the ICG proposal and don't see reference to "RZERC", what part of the ICG (to be specific CWG) proposal is this implementing?
The name is new. The committee is described in paragraph 155 of the CWG proposal. 1155 of the ICG proposal I think.
- I note that review of charter every 5 years is indicated, but there seem to be no room to modify the charter in situations requiring urgent need.
The 5 years is a mandatory review.
- There is no process of replacing members indicated.
There is similarly no process for formally naming them. It is up to the appointing body (they all come from somewhere specific).
- What part of the ICANN(or perhaps it's going to be applicable to PTI ) bylaw recognises the formation of the RZERC
ICANN. The RZERC advises the ICANN Board and can act as an advisor to other groups as necessary (such as IANA itself)
- Is the RZERC a new ICANN AC?
It is an advisory committee, but not an Advisory Committee in the sense of the ACs defined in the Bylaws. The Board has the responsibility of approving substantive changes in the RZ architecture and operation. The RZERC is a resource it uses to do the analysis.
- Who funds the activities of the RZERC?
To the extent that it needs funds, ICANN.
- Renumeration of the group is not explicitly indicated in the charter; is this a volunteer group or a paid group?
They are paid double what I am paid and tripple what you are paid.
- What will be the connection between RZERC and PTI board (since they will be more closer to IANA than ICANN board post-transition) since it seem this group reports/works with ICANN board?
No connection. The PTI Board oversees the physical operation of PTI. The ICANN Board, replacing NTIA, is responsible for RZ issues as per the previously mentioned section of the CWG/ICG reports.
Alan
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 May 2016 6:20 p.m., "Lise Fuhr" <Fuhr@etno.eu> wrote:
Dear CWG,
Attached is the RZERC charter for your review. We would like to receive your comments at 17 May at the latest 23.59 utc (2 week review period). We furthermore plan to have a CWG call at the 12 may where the RZERC Charter will be discussed.
Best regards,
Jonathan and Lise
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:yXSxQKq/XJtXcx74HQ6pcWbqx+b5hJebhZjStOfe2vcCaFJ13kuGboEAYxZedfvpfqoQkW2my/77y/UqGl8n/BZrde2MO+2rOPKk/tzSDPSclTyxHy+8MwGyIS5oWnPtJXGBJ+eJUMHEFVAZUN4McvB0XW/SRKMbIhIxtENblbs=
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list 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: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrew Sullivan -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Eduardo Diaz -
Gomes, Chuck -
James Gannon -
Martin Boyle -
Mueller, Milton L -
Seun Ojedeji