[Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM

[Mueller, Milton L]

Alissa and all, sorry to respond so slowly to this

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.

MM: I think we could, actually, if we tell them we won’t pass on the proposal to NTIA until they do. If we say their proposal is not complete, it isn’t complete, full stop. Also, I am not sure that they have definitively said they don’t 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 define and describe the roles and responsibilities of ICANN, PTI and the RZM, which is NOT something that amending the CA can do.

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.

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.

MM: It is headed in the right direction, but the part I object to is the conflation of defining the _future_ IFO-RZM relationship with the NTIA’s “parallel process” revising the _current_ RZM’s cooperative agreement. I don’t 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’t agree with the idea that we let NTIA, Verisign and ICANN define that relationship by themselves.

MM: It sounds like you and perhaps others on ICG don’t agree that we can ask the CWG to actually finish its work and address the “creation of an arrangement between the IFO and RZM.” 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:

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’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.

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?

MM: You mean the accountability mechanisms that the board has refused to accept?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151012/0c77234f/attachment.html>