<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Russ Mundy and I agreed that it would be appropriate to send a question to the CWG (names) about the RZM issue. I sent this text out to him last night, but Russ has not indicated whether he likes this language
or not. As we enter into the second day, I think it would be more efficient for me to send this to the entire group now rather than waiting, so that it’s “out there” for you all to consider:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">QUESTION FROM THE ICG FOR THE NAMES OC:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">The statement below notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate “roles” with distinct functions. Currently, these roles are held and their associated
functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to “make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification,” did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or its IFO should not become
RZM the without being subject to a “wide community consultation?” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">--- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">2) Control of Root Zone Management: Currently, updating the Root Zone requires the active participation of three parties: the IFO, the Root Zone Maintainer and the NTIA. …
<span style="color:black;background:white">Post transition there will only be the IFO and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG-Stewardship is not recommending any change in the functions performed by these two roles at this time. The CWG-Stewardship is recommending
that should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation."</span></span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Mueller, Milton L <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 18, 2015 9:06 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Russ Mundy' <mundy@tislabs.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Keith Davidson' <keith@internetnz.net.nz><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Question for CWG-names on RZM<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Russ, Keith<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here is a question I have formulated for transmission to the CWG.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">The CWG proposal pertaining to root zone management cites as a “Principle” the following (paragraph 1158):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">2) Control of Root Zone Management: Currently, updating the Root Zone requires the active participation of three parties: the IFO, the Root Zone Maintainer and the NTIA. The IFO receives change
requests from various sources, validates them, and sends them to the Root Zone Maintainer who, once they are authorized by the NTIA, updates the Root Zone File, DNSSEC signs it and distributes it to the Root operators.
<span style="color:black;background:white">Post transition there will only be the IFO and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG-Stewardship is not recommending any change in the functions performed by these two roles at this time. The CWG-Stewardship is recommending
that should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, that such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation."<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">QUESTION FOR THE NAMES OC:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white">The statement above notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate “roles” with distinct functions. However, currently these roles and their associated
functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to “make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification,” did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or its IFO should not become
RZM the without being subject to a “wide community consultation?”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dr. Milton L. Mueller<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Professor, School of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Georgia Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>