[Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM

Russ Mundy mundy at tislabs.com
Fri Oct 9 18:57:36 UTC 2015


Narelle, Alissa, Milton,

I think that we previously ended up using the phrase “written agreement” instead “contract” since it seemed inappropriate for the ICG to specify a particular type of “written agreement”.  

I think that the primary characteristic is that the roles and responsibilities for each of the parties (IFO & RZM) be mutually agreed to (in some written form) by both of the parties.  A contract might be what they would use but it could be some other form of mutually acceptable agreement.

I’m fine with Alissa’s latest working but if we think that an example would help, we could add an "e.g., a contract,” after “written agreement” in the last sentence.

RussM

On Oct 9, 2015, at 1:15 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi Narelle,
> 
> I meant the contract needs to be in place. I thought this was the point Russ made on the call.
> 
> Alissa
> 
>> On Oct 8, 2015, at 10:04 PM, Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au> wrote:
>> 
>> Alissa
>> You have:
>> “and that the written agreement between the IFO and RZM that establishes each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.”
>>  
>> Do you mean “the written agreement” [ie a contract be in place] or “a 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.”
>>  
>>  
>> Narelle
>>  
>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 10:44 AM
>> To: Mueller, Milton L
>> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM
>>  
>> Hi Milton,
>>  
>> On Oct 8, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>  
>> Responding to Alissa’s request for specific “what to do” proposals,
>> 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). 
>>  
>> 1. I would propose that we say to CWG:
>>  
>> 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.
>>  
>> 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’t think we can make them do it. 
>>  
>> 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:
>>  
>> OLD
>> 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.
>>  
>> NEW
>> 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’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 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? 
>>  
>> Based on para 1155 (2) and the use of the word “delegates," it doesn’t 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.
>> 
>> 
>> And what would stop the ICANN board from disregarding public comments if it chose to?
>>  
>> Isn’t this what the ICANN accountability mechanisms are for?
>>  
>> Alissa
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>  
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151009/36736c7e/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list