[Internal-cg] Part 0 language for RZM

[Alissa Cooper]

Thanks Milton. I think this is good. I have some specific comments below. One over-arching question: how do you think this text fits together with the text currently in paragraph 55 of the proposal? Would we keep both, combine them somehow, or replace paragraph 55 with the text below? I quite like the detail in paragraph 55 and the references to the CWG proposal, so perhaps some version of it could remain by combining it with your second paragraph below and editing the combined paragraph.

> On Sep 26, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> I thought I had sent this out before but now I am not sure. So to be safe I send it now (again?)
>  
> The ICG recognizes that a complete and finalized transition requires more than implementing its own proposal. It also requires revising the relationship between the current Root Zone Maintainer (Verisign), Root Zone Administrator (the U.S. Commerce Department) and IANA functions operator (ICANN). Insofar as those revisions require amendments to (or elimination of) the cooperative agreement between the NTIA and Verisign, the process will be controlled by the NTIA, not the ICG. This “related and parallel transition,” as the NTIA described it in its March 2014 announcement, involves interactions between NTIA, ICANN and Verisign that are outside of the ICG process. Nevertheless, the NTIA itself has recognized that “aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement,” and thus the results of that process must be consistent with the ICG proposal’s approach to the IANA Functions.
>  
> So far the NTIA process seems to have built upon the output of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. The names CWG proposed elimination of the NTIA’s root zone change authorization function and described a set of guidelines and principles regarding post-transition root zone administration. To the ICG, the post-transition RZM architecture proposed in an NTIA-solicited document by ICANN and Verisign does not seem to be inconsistent with those guidelines and principles. 

I think we should cite the document. Also, I would suggest “seems to be consistent” rather than the double negative.

>  
> In the public comment period, however, a wide range of stakeholder groups expressed concern about the transparency of the

I would suggest “stakeholders” rather than “stakeholder groups.”

Alissa

> 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:
> ·        Asked for clarification from CWG-Stewardship about its policy toward the separation of the IANA Functions Operator, ICANN and the Root Zone Maintainer;
> ·        Asked the CWG-Stewardship to confirm that the Verisign/ICANN proposal for revising Root Zone Management post-transition meets their requirements
> 
> <Additional text would depend on the result of these inquiries. E.g., if CWG replies to our first question saying, “yes, the second principle implies that different organizations should be providing IFO and RZM, and before that changes there should be a consultation that obtains consensus” then we can say to the NTIA: “make sure any revisions in the Verisign cooperative agreement/ICANN arrangements you approve are not inconsistent with that.” If CWG says that the proposal of ICANN-Verisign meets their requirements then we have no need to make any comment. If it does not we need to convey to NTIA-ICANN-Verisign what is missing. >
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150929/bc750c95/attachment.html>