<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Sounds coherent and convincing to me</div><div>Michael<br><br>Von meinem iPhone gesendet</div><div><br>Am 21.09.2015 um 15:54 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu">milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu</a>>:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<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-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white">Dear all:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white">I am working on the Section 0 language and comment summary on Root Zone Management (RZM) as requested.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white">After reviewing the key transition documents and our own record of discussion and comment, I think we have made a bit of a mistake in our conceptualization of our relationship to the NTIA process. it appears
that we have considered \u2018RZM\u2019 as a whole to be under NTIA\u2019s remit and not ours. This is incorrect.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white">The only thing that NTIA has asserted exclusive \u2018jurisdiction\u2019 over is the NTIA-Verisign cooperative agreement, which it said would be the subject of a \u201crelated and parallel transition.\u201d NTIA control of that
process is quite appropriate, because the CA is a contract between VRSN and NTIA; only those two parties can change it. But there is nothing in the March 2014 announcement or anything else that says that NTIA is exclusively responsible for all aspects of RZM.
Indeed, the CWG has already dealt with the authorization function, which is a critical part of RZM, and as part of its proposal CWG made many other suggestions and proposals related to the role of the IANA functions operator in RZM. While revision of the cooperative
agreement is NTIA\u2019s job exclusively, those aspects of RZM that touch directly on the IANA functions operator (IFO) are either joint responsibilities or part of the ICG\u2019s remit.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white">From this I conclude that ICG should tone down its disclaimers about how this is all outside of its remit, and that we would be fully justified in insisting that any revisions in RZM that NTIA, ICANN and Verisign
agree to as part of the revision of Verisign\u2019s Cooperative agreement need to be consistent and compatible with the CWG\u2019s proposals for the organization, functions and processes of the IFO.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white">So I would propose that in addition to the clarification question we have already agreed to send, we add another request, asking the CWG to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal on RZM meets their requirements.
This was suggested by Nominet UK and indirectly suggested by many others.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background:white">Comments?<o:p></o:p></span></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>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Internal-cg mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org">Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org">http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>