<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=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
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=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Alissa<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>You have:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>\u201cand that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM that establishes each party\u2019s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.\u201d<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Do you mean \u201cthe written agreement\u201d [ie a contract be in place] or \u201ca document outlining the roles, and therefore the principles, for any future agreement between the IFO and RZM be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.\u201d<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Narelle<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@ianacg.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alissa Cooper<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, October 09, 2015 10:44 AM<br><b>To:</b> Mueller, Milton L<br><b>Cc:</b> internal-cg@ianacg.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Milton,<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Oct 8, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu">milton.mueller@pubpolicy.gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Responding to Alissa\u2019s request for specific \u201cwhat to do\u201d proposals,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>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).<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>1. I would propose that we say to CWG:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>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></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hmmm. I think we have a pretty clear message from the CWG that they do not want to do this, at least for (a) and (b). I don\u2019t think we can make them do it. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>However, I think we can build on the text you wrote already in part 0 and make it clear what the requirements are for this before the transition can be completed. Here is my suggested addition to para 84:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>OLD<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholders expressed concern about the transparency of the parallel process and the uncertainty created by its status as a private negotiation among NTIA, Verisign and ICANN. Commenters seemed especially concerned about whether the global multistakeholder community would be consulted about the new arrangements before they are finalized, and whether the changes might permit significant changes in roles, such as ICANN taking over the RZM function. In response to these concerns, the ICG took the following actions: (1) asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer; and (2) asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>NEW<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholders expressed concern about the transparency of the parallel process and the uncertainty created by its status as a private negotiation among NTIA, Verisign and ICANN. Commenters seemed especially concerned about whether the global multistakeholder community would be consulted about the new arrangements before they are finalized, and whether the changes might permit significant changes in roles, such as ICANN taking over the RZM function. The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed and the CWG-Stewardship expects this to be subject subject to a separate and parallel process. The ICG believes that this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM that establishes each party\u2019s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>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? <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Based on para 1155 (2) and the use of the word \u201cdelegates," it doesn\u2019t seem like the board appoints the committee. I have been assuming that the communities referenced appoint their own representatives, and I think that has been the assumption of at least some of those communities as well. I would have to dig back from the CWG comments but I thought the IAB even said something to that effect.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>And what would stop the ICANN board from disregarding public comments if it chose to?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Isn\u2019t this what the ICANN accountability mechanisms are for?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Alissa<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Dr. Milton L. Mueller<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Professor, School of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Georgia Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>_______________________________________________<br>Internal-cg mailing list<br></span><a href="mailto:Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#954F72'>Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'><br></span><a href="http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#954F72'>http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>