<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-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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Responding to Alissa’s request for specific “what to do” proposals,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Having thought as hard as I could about the RZM issue in the short time we have, I see one additional clarification question that can be asked (see #2 below). But on the "written agreement" issue unfortunately i see no viable option but
to tell the CWG it has more work to do (#1). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. I would propose that we say to CWG:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As the proposal developer for the names OC, CWG must provide ICG and the NTIA with a proposal regarding the arrangements that will ensure that PTI's root zone changes will be implemented by the RZM. This proposal must be able to provide
sufficient guidance to the NTIA's "separate and parallel process" that will modify the Verisign Cooperative Agreement. While this proposal need not be as detailed as the proposal regarding the PTI's relationship to ICANN, it should at least a) define and describe
the roles and responsibilities of ICANN, PTI and the RZM; b) specify when the selection of Verisign as RZM would be reviewed or rebid; and c) codify the current preference that ICANN, IFO, and RZM be separate entities.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. The ICG is concerned about a possible gap in the accountability arrangements regarding a change in the separate entities currently providing IFO and RZM. The CWG proposal says that any change must involve a public comment period, approval
by a Standing Review Committee and the ICANN board. However, will the ICANN board appoint the Standing Review Committee? And what would stop the ICANN board from disregarding public comments if it chose to?<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>