[Internal-cg] revised question for CWG on RZM

[Russ Mundy]

Milton,

Thanks for this revised version.  I do have one very minor suggestion and that is to add a few words to the second sentence so it is clear which document we’re referring to:

Current wording: “Paragraph 1158 in the CWG proposal notes..."

Suggested wording: “Paragraph 1158 in the CWG portion of the transition proposal (Part 1) notes..."

Russ

On Sep 19, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:

>  
> QUESTION FOR THE NAMES OC:
>  
> The ICG has a question for the CWG based on comments received in the ICG's public comment period. Paragraph 1158 in the CWG proposal notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate “roles” with distinct functions. However, currently these roles and their associated functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to “make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification,” did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or its IFO should not become RZM without being subject to a “wide community consultation?” The ICG would also like to know what is meant by a “wide community consultation?” Is it the same as a public comment? Does it also imply wide community consensus?
> A reply prior to ICANN 54 would be appreciated.
>  
>  
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/b3a95dda/attachment.html>