[Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM

[Joseph Alhadeff]

at the meeting in LA there was a review of our mandate which led us to believe that an inquiry into the RZM was appropriate and not out of scope.  That was an inflection point to our analysis.  The question is whether the RZM should be listed as a dependency that will be solved outside of CWG but which will impact the transition?  

Do we also pass on the concerns of lack of transparency and consultation?  Those have been elements we have found essential to meeting NTIA requirements for the rest of the transition?

Joe 

Sent from my iPad

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> 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?
>  
> MM: Um, the fact that it’s not complete. To me, our failure to notice this before doesn’t mean that we can’t say anything about it now.
>  
> I don’t think the public comments told us anything we didn’t know before about the CWG proposal’s completeness in this regard.
>  
> MM: I don’t 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’t. That’s why you do public comments; we are bound not to notice something so we put it out for public comment.
>  
> 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.
>  
> MM: the key phrase here is “a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities” and based on my understanding of English “these responsibilities” refers back quite clearly to the RZM responsibilities _in the Verisign CA_. Heck, we also know that getting the NTIA out of root zone approval authority – which is PART OF THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT – 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.  
>  
> 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.
>  
> [snip]
>  
> 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: So we’ve gone from “the CWG has input” to “open for input from anyone…” Good.
>  
> 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.
> 
> 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.
>  
> 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. 
>  
> MM: So the fact that we missed it the first time around means that we pretend it’s not an issue now? I don’t get that. But here is a way to modify the language (which works as long as the second part remains):
>  
> 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.
>  
> 
> 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 establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.
>  
> MM: So you are ok with this second part?
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151012/97f53292/attachment.html>