[Internal-cg] Questions for the CWG on RZM

[Russ Mundy]

Folks,

I think having the additional question added is appropriate but I think that it seems to be better ‘fit’ for the order of the questions to be flipped/reversed.

More suggestions inline below:

On Sep 21, 2015, at 7:13 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> 
>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Here are my proposed questions. The second one reflects all the edits we discussed at the face to face meeting, though there will probably still be some quibbles with it. The first is a new one.
>> --MM
>> 
>> 2 RZM QUESTIONS FOR THE NAMES OC:
>> 
>> 1.	Due to concerns expressed in the public comment period, ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root
> 
> sub “confirm whether” for “confirm that”

Agree with this suggestion.

I think that it would also be appropriate to include the specific url where the proposal is posted:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf

since I don’t think that the reference is included in the CWG proposal.

> 
>> Zone Management arrangements after the elimination of NTIA's authorization role meets the CWG's requirements
> 
> Please insert a citation to the paragraph or section from the combined transition proposal that states the CWG’s requirements.

I think that this is a good suggestion but I was unable to locate a place in the CWG proposal that identified these requirements.

> 
>> 
>> 2.	Based on comments received in the ICG's public comment period, the ICG seeks clarification from the CWG on the following matter.
> 
> Since we will be sending multiple questions, I think we can move the above sentence up above all of the questions and sub “matters” for “matter.”

I agree

Russ

> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
>> Paragraph 1158 in the CWG portion of the transition proposal (Part 1) 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 the IFO should not become the RZM without the proposal to make that change first 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 period? Does it also imply that wide community consensus would be necessary before making the change? The CWG is requested to provide comment or clarification for any further action, as appropriate. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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