<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:"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">I have a couple of reactions to this. First, I agree we could go back to them if we thought the proposal is not complete. But we\u2019ve had their proposal in front of us since June. We assessed it on its own and together with the other proposals.
We put language in the proposal to make it clear that a written agreement between the IFO and the RZM is necessary before the contract expires. The details of that agreement were to be part of the implementation phase, as other details are. So what would the
basis be for us to now decide that the CWG proposal is not complete? <span style="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">MM: Um, the fact that it\u2019s not complete. To me, our failure to notice this before doesn\u2019t mean that we can\u2019t say anything about it now.
<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">I don\u2019t think the public comments told us anything we didn\u2019t know before about the CWG proposal\u2019s completeness in this regard.<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 don\u2019t agree; indeed, I have no idea on what basis you make this claim. Can you point to any previous discussions we had about this that explicitly examined
the boundaries between what NTIA was expected to do and what CWG was expected to do? I think the public comments raised a lot more concerns about the RZM arrangements than I had expected, and put a spotlight on them which made us all think harder about what
exactly was missing, what was part of the NTIA process and what wasn\u2019t. That\u2019s why you do public comments; we are bound not to notice something so we put it out for public comment.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think the underlying problem here is that we do not know the details about the parallel process NTIA plans to run. You say that that process is only about amending the cooperative agreement, but how can we be sure? This text is all we
have about it, I think [1]:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;background:white">Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root zone file management),
which would require that NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities.<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: the key phrase here is \u201ca related and parallel transition in these responsibilities\u201d and based on my understanding of English \u201cthese responsibilities\u201d refers
back quite clearly to the RZM responsibilities _<i>in the Verisign CA</i>_. Heck, we also know that getting the NTIA out of root zone approval authority \u2013 which is PART OF THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT \u2013 has been addressed by the CWG, not by a parallel, NTIA-driven
process, so there is precedent for the fact that CWG can do things that touch on RZM but everyone recognizes can only be implemented by the NTIA. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, a written agreement between the IFO and the RZM could be the outcome of that. I think the important thing is to make sure the CWG has input into that process, not that they need to decide its outcome in advance.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">[snip]<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">Per my note above, I thought we were talking about one process \u2014 open for input from anyone \u2014 that defines the arrangements between the RZM and the IFO going forward.<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: So we\u2019ve gone from \u201cthe CWG has input\u201d to \u201copen for input from anyone\u2026\u201d Good.<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">Yes, I do disagree with that option. I think the CWG put this in the bucket with all of the other items that need to be completed before the contract expires, but not before we send the proposal to NTIA. The additional insight we\u2019ve gained
from the public comments tells me we need to be explicit about the need for the involvement from the names community in completing that task. But I don\u2019t think we learned something that told us that the CWG proposal is incomplete.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">MM: As noted before, I disagree with your last statement. But more important, the defining characteristic of the separate and parallel process is that it is NOT open for input from
anyone. If we get that openness, most of my concerns are assuaged. But I think it odd that you think we cannot tell the CWG what to do but we can tell the NTIA what to do. I.e., we can suddenly tell NTIA that its process must be open and transparent and subject
to the approval of the CWG? Fine with me. Good luck with that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<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>
<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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Again here I\u2019m not comfortable with us saying this unless we have some basis for making a new discovery about the CWG\u2019s mandate. We wrote the RFP and we had many prior opportunities to bring this to the CWG if we thought it was necessary. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="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: So the fact that we missed it the first time around means that we pretend it\u2019s not an issue now? I don\u2019t get that. But here is a way to modify the language
(which works as long as the second part remains):<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: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 CWG now
prefers to let those relationships be defined by a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA.</span><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>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<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>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">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 establish</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">ing</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">
each party\u2019s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="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: So you are ok with this second part?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>