<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 15 (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:"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: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 and all, sorry to respond so slowly to this<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 style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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>
<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">MM: I think we could, actually, if we tell them we won\u2019t pass on the proposal to NTIA until they do. If we say their proposal is not complete, it isn\u2019t complete,
full stop. Also, I am not sure that they have definitively said they don\u2019t want to do it. What I am hearing is, rather, a reluctance to admit that they are not finished and a fear of the delays that might be caused, and some confusion between the NTIA-Verisign
parallel process that amends the CA and the need for the CWG to </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">define and describe the roles and
responsibilities of ICANN, PTI and the RZM, which is NOT something that amending the CA can do.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">MM: Regarding delay, I think it would take about one full working day for the CWG to
decide when the selection of Verisign as RZM would be rebid (or was permanent, or whatever) and to describe what the roles would be. If it took longer than that it would indicate that substantial issues are raised which in turn is an indication that this should
not be left to NTIA to decide. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p></o:p></span></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>
<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">MM: It is headed in the right direction, but the part I object to is the conflation of defining the _<i>future</i>_ IFO-RZM relationship with the NTIA\u2019s \u201cparallel
process\u201d revising the _<i>current</i>_ RZM\u2019s cooperative agreement. I don\u2019t see how NTIA can revise the cooperative agreement without knowing how we want the RZM to be related to the ICANN and the IFO. And I don\u2019t agree with the idea that we let NTIA, Verisign
and ICANN define that relationship by themselves. <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">MM: It sounds like you and perhaps others on ICG don\u2019t agree that we can ask the CWG to actually finish its work and address the \u201ccreation of an arrangement between
the IFO and RZM.\u201d I would ask everyone to express their disagreement or agreement with that option, because my first choice, as suggested above, would be to tell CWG that their proposal is not complete until their do what is asked. But if that option is not
popular here, I would propose a compromise wording as follows:<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their proposal. The ICG believes
that defining and describing the respective roles and agreements among ICANN, PTI and the RZM post-transition should have been part of the CWG's mandate. CWG-Stewardship, on the other hand, believes it should be determined by a separate and parallel process
run by the NTIA. The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process, 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></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red"><br>
</span><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>
</blockquote>
<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">MM: You mean the accountability mechanisms that the board has refused to accept?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>