[Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM

Mon Oct 12 20:54:53 UTC 2015

Thanks Milton. Responses inline.

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 1:13 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> 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.

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’ve 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? I don’t think the public comments told us anything we didn’t know before about the CWG proposal’s completeness in this regard.

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]:

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.

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.

>  
> 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. 

That may or may not be true, but even if it took five minutes it would likely involve going back out to the community and/or chartering organizations for consensus building, which would certainly require much more time for review in order to be legitimate.

>  
> 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. 

Per my note above, I thought we were talking about one process — open for input from anyone — that defines the arrangements between the RZM and the IFO going forward.

>  
> 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. 

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’ve 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’t think we learned something that told us that the CWG proposal is incomplete.

> 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.

Again here I’m not comfortable with us saying this unless we have some basis for making a new discovery about the CWG’s mandate. We wrote the RFP and we had many prior opportunities to bring this to the CWG if we thought it was necessary. 

> 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?

You could make that argument for all of the CCWG dependencies to which it applies. My point is that we already know the answer to this question, and we already acknowledge in six different places in the document that the dependency exists.

Thanks,
Alissa

[1] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_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/20151012/fcddad5d/attachment.html>