FRIENDLY REMINDER: Review on Trusted Community Representation #Root #Zone #DNSSEC [Call for Comments]
Dear All, The call for comments from At Large closes on 7th February, 2014. There is currently some difference in views on whether the Trusted Community Representatives (TCRs) should have indefinite terms of whether this should rotated. Should TCRs continue to remain self funded or should they be funded? There are also a few other important aspects of this that we would like to consult the wider community on before amending the draft. For those of you who have already commented, thank you. I am mindful that we still have not heard from others. Feel free to comment directly on the wiki via the link below or by responding to this thread. https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag Your input into this process will help us finalize the Draft. May we have your views please? Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
This is just a friendly reminder in case you missed it that there is an ongoing Review on Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies. Grateful if the RALO Chairs could also ask their members for their views.
For the benefit of the general community at large and those who have just entered the community, you would have been advised at some point that anyone in At Large can have their say on aspects of Policies either individually as you comment directly on the site to the staff concerned or as we in the At Large community do it through the At Large channels by way of the "Wiki" or through email discussions.
If you would like to comment on the Draft Statement currently being developed by the At Large on this matter, visit:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Review+of+Trusted...
If you are finding that you have difficulties posting your comment on the wiki, feel free to respond to this thread and post your thoughts. On the wiki you will see that the Review Team had laid several questions for the public and wider community. This can help guide your comments and to have a fair idea of the areas that they want and value your feedback on. The At Large will close the call for comments on the 7th of February, 2014 so get your thoughts in if you want them factored in.
In case you do not have a profile to enable you to post on the Wiki (ICANN Confluence) - please contact At Large staff offline.
Kind Regards, Sala
Dear Salanieta: I was unable to add my comments on the wiki because the editor does not load, although I tried several times. My comment was sent yesterday LACRALO < lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> list in spanish, and I copy this below, with a variant cleared on that list in another mail, in which I send it deleted the wrong paragraph . Best Regards I agree with the draft Salanieta with the observations made by Olivier , except the issue of financing , which I agree with Alexander. The word " sacred " could be changed to " solemn " because it is a solemnity and compliance is an essential requirement in the process of KSK . Responsibility regarding the control of TCR , which mentions Alexander on ensuring transparency , accountability , and defending the Internet users, and is set to generic point 9 of the Statement of Commitment between the Department of Commerce U.S. and ICANN , (the first document cited by Salanieta ) . Moreover, the entire process of the ceremony itself is a guarantee of transparency and protection of users . There are strict controls and detailed in the DNSSEC Practice Statement of the procedure for accreditation of entry of persons, etc., for the Root Zone Operator (TCR ) , your responsibilities are established and each of the steps you must follow what is proper documents governing safety at these levels of the root. There are also prerequisites for the selection and appointment of the TCR , instructions for its function.That's part of the technical process of the company Verisign , specialist in informatic security . As for the number of TCR , understand that it is reasonable and who applied for the position, must know and accept their demands were selected according to rules and monitored compliance with requirements and is scheduled for the 21 selected will be appointed only some will setected ( 6 or 8) for two ceremonies that simultaneously at different locations each year in four opportunities . The amount would be more to cover possible contingencies. Regarding see major funding strictly maintain the independence of the process being controlled , between those who are appointed to control the process and who is responsible of it, in these last ICANN. This, besides exposing Alexander and there are many whose travel costs that could and perhaps should be without, given the possibility of remote participation , which is not the case of the TCR , which have be physically present . 2014-02-04 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
The call for comments from At Large closes on 7th February, 2014.
There is currently some difference in views on whether the Trusted Community Representatives (TCRs) should have indefinite terms of whether this should rotated.
Should TCRs continue to remain self funded or should they be funded?
There are also a few other important aspects of this that we would like to consult the wider community on before amending the draft. For those of you who have already commented, thank you. I am mindful that we still have not heard from others. Feel free to comment directly on the wiki via the link below or by responding to this thread.
https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Your input into this process will help us finalize the Draft. May we have your views please?
Kind Regards, Sala
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
This is just a friendly reminder in case you missed it that there is an ongoing Review on Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies. Grateful if the RALO Chairs could also ask their members for their views.
For the benefit of the general community at large and those who have just entered the community, you would have been advised at some point that anyone in At Large can have their say on aspects of Policies either individually as you comment directly on the site to the staff concerned or as we in the At Large community do it through the At Large channels by way of the "Wiki" or through email discussions.
If you would like to comment on the Draft Statement currently being developed by the At Large on this matter, visit:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Review+of+Trusted...
If you are finding that you have difficulties posting your comment on the wiki, feel free to respond to this thread and post your thoughts. On the wiki you will see that the Review Team had laid several questions for the public and wider community. This can help guide your comments and to
have a
fair idea of the areas that they want and value your feedback on. The At Large will close the call for comments on the 7th of February, 2014 so get your thoughts in if you want them factored in.
In case you do not have a profile to enable you to post on the Wiki (ICANN Confluence) - please contact At Large staff offline.
Kind Regards, Sala
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia
Dear Aida, thank you for your comments which I am asking staff to include on the WIKI. Anonymous comments are current turned off due to a recent spam attack. Comments may also be forwarded by email to staff@atlarge.icann.org Kind regards, Olivier On 04/02/2014 20:42, Aida Noblia wrote:
Dear Salanieta:
I was unable to add my comments on the wiki because the editor does not load, although I tried several times.
My comment was sent yesterday LACRALO < lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> list in spanish, and I copy this below, with a variant cleared on that list in another mail, in which I send it deleted the wrong paragraph .
Best Regards
I agree with the draft Salanieta with the observations made by Olivier , except the issue of financing , which I agree with Alexander. The word " sacred " could be changed to " solemn " because it is a solemnity and compliance is an essential requirement in the process of KSK .
Responsibility regarding the control of TCR , which mentions Alexander on ensuring transparency , accountability , and defending the Internet users, and is set to generic point 9 of the Statement of Commitment between the Department of Commerce U.S. and ICANN , (the first document cited by Salanieta ) .
Moreover, the entire process of the ceremony itself is a guarantee of transparency and protection of users . There are strict controls and detailed in the DNSSEC Practice Statement of the procedure for accreditation of entry of persons, etc., for the Root Zone Operator (TCR ) , your responsibilities are established and each of the steps you must follow what is proper documents governing safety at these levels of the root.
There are also prerequisites for the selection and appointment of the TCR , instructions for its function.That's part of the technical process of the company Verisign , specialist in informatic security .
As for the number of TCR , understand that it is reasonable and who applied for the position, must know and accept their demands were selected according to rules and monitored compliance with requirements and is scheduled for the 21 selected will be appointed only some will setected ( 6 or 8) for two ceremonies that simultaneously at different locations each year in four opportunities . The amount would be more to cover possible contingencies.
Regarding see major funding strictly maintain the independence of the process being controlled , between those who are appointed to control the process and who is responsible of it, in these last ICANN. This, besides exposing Alexander and there are many whose travel costs that could and perhaps should be without, given the possibility of remote participation , which is not the case of the TCR , which have be physically present .
2014-02-04 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
The call for comments from At Large closes on 7th February, 2014.
There is currently some difference in views on whether the Trusted Community Representatives (TCRs) should have indefinite terms of whether this should rotated.
Should TCRs continue to remain self funded or should they be funded?
There are also a few other important aspects of this that we would like to consult the wider community on before amending the draft. For those of you who have already commented, thank you. I am mindful that we still have not heard from others. Feel free to comment directly on the wiki via the link below or by responding to this thread.
https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Your input into this process will help us finalize the Draft. May we have your views please?
Kind Regards, Sala
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
This is just a friendly reminder in case you missed it that there is an ongoing Review on Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies. Grateful if the RALO Chairs could also ask their members for their views.
For the benefit of the general community at large and those who have just entered the community, you would have been advised at some point that anyone in At Large can have their say on aspects of Policies either individually as you comment directly on the site to the staff concerned or as we in the At Large community do it through the At Large channels by way of the "Wiki" or through email discussions.
If you would like to comment on the Draft Statement currently being developed by the At Large on this matter, visit:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Review+of+Trusted...
If you are finding that you have difficulties posting your comment on the wiki, feel free to respond to this thread and post your thoughts. On the wiki you will see that the Review Team had laid several questions for the public and wider community. This can help guide your comments and to have a fair idea of the areas that they want and value your feedback on. The At Large will close the call for comments on the 7th of February, 2014 so get your thoughts in if you want them factored in.
In case you do not have a profile to enable you to post on the Wiki (ICANN Confluence) - please contact At Large staff offline.
Kind Regards, Sala
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Dear Oliver :Thank you for your explanation. I sent a comment yesterday LACRALO list, but in Spanish. Today saw the urgent request of Salanieta and sent the comment translated, but my English is not good .. Best Regards Aída 2014-02-04 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>:
Dear Aida,
thank you for your comments which I am asking staff to include on the WIKI. Anonymous comments are current turned off due to a recent spam attack. Comments may also be forwarded by email to staff@atlarge.icann.org
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 04/02/2014 20:42, Aida Noblia wrote:
Dear Salanieta:
I was unable to add my comments on the wiki because the editor does not load, although I tried several times.
My comment was sent yesterday LACRALO < lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> list in spanish, and I copy this below, with a variant cleared on that list in another mail, in which I send it deleted the wrong paragraph .
Best Regards
I agree with the draft Salanieta with the observations made by Olivier , except the issue of financing , which I agree with Alexander. The word " sacred " could be changed to " solemn " because it is a solemnity and compliance is an essential requirement in the process of KSK .
Responsibility regarding the control of TCR , which mentions Alexander on ensuring transparency , accountability , and defending the Internet users, and is set to generic point 9 of the Statement of Commitment between the Department of Commerce U.S. and ICANN , (the first document cited by Salanieta ) .
Moreover, the entire process of the ceremony itself is a guarantee of transparency and protection of users . There are strict controls and detailed in the DNSSEC Practice Statement of the procedure for accreditation of entry of persons, etc., for the Root Zone Operator (TCR ) , your responsibilities are established and each of the steps you must follow what is proper documents governing safety at these levels of the root.
There are also prerequisites for the selection and appointment of the TCR , instructions for its function.That's part of the technical process of the company Verisign , specialist in informatic security .
As for the number of TCR , understand that it is reasonable and who applied for the position, must know and accept their demands were selected according to rules and monitored compliance with requirements and is scheduled for the 21 selected will be appointed only some will setected ( 6 or 8) for two ceremonies that simultaneously at different locations each year in four opportunities . The amount would be more to cover possible contingencies.
Regarding see major funding strictly maintain the independence of the process being controlled , between those who are appointed to control the process and who is responsible of it, in these last ICANN. This, besides exposing Alexander and there are many whose travel costs that could and perhaps should be without, given the possibility of remote participation , which is not the case of the TCR , which have be physically present .
2014-02-04 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
The call for comments from At Large closes on 7th February, 2014.
There is currently some difference in views on whether the Trusted Community Representatives (TCRs) should have indefinite terms of whether this should rotated.
Should TCRs continue to remain self funded or should they be funded?
There are also a few other important aspects of this that we would like to consult the wider community on before amending the draft. For those of you who have already commented, thank you. I am mindful that we still have not heard from others. Feel free to comment directly on the wiki via the link below or by responding to this thread.
https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Your input into this process will help us finalize the Draft. May we have your views please?
Kind Regards, Sala
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
This is just a friendly reminder in case you missed it that there is an ongoing Review on Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies. Grateful if the RALO Chairs could also ask their members for their views.
For the benefit of the general community at large and those who have just entered the community, you would have been advised at some point that anyone in At Large can have their say on aspects of Policies either individually as you comment directly on the site to the staff concerned or as we in the At Large community do it through the At Large channels by way of the "Wiki" or through email discussions.
If you would like to comment on the Draft Statement currently being developed by the At Large on this matter, visit:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Review+of+Trusted...
If you are finding that you have difficulties posting your comment on the wiki, feel free to respond to this thread and post your thoughts. On the wiki you will see that the Review Team had laid several questions for the public and wider community. This can help guide your comments and to have a fair idea of the areas that they want and value your feedback on. The At Large will close the call for comments on the 7th of February, 2014 so get your thoughts in if you want them factored in.
In case you do not have a profile to enable you to post on the Wiki (ICANN Confluence) - please contact At Large staff offline.
Kind Regards, Sala
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia
Dear Sala, All, Regarding the ALAC statement about Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies and based on the comments made in LACRALO, I am trying to summarize the main points to be included in the ALAC statement: -We agree that the signing process of cryptographic keys that are at the basis of the DNSSEC reliability is of great importance. -The word "sacred" could be changed to "solemn" because it is a solemnity and its compliance is an essential requirement to the KSK process. -We believe that the whole process of the ceremony itself is a guarantee of transparency and protection of users. It should be expressed more clearly how this issue may affect Internet users. -The statement should be expanded to the recognition of the unique combination the key-signing and TCRs make of broad participation, transparency and accountability in order to serve the central function of preserving and enhancing the stability, security and resilience of the DNS, thus engendering widespread trust. -We do not believe ALAC should propose any increase in processes; streamlining should be the direction. We also consider it is not necessary to increase the number of TCR. This number is reasonable. These members were selected according to clear rules and ensuring compliance with requirements. -As for support for TCRs, a statement that acting as a TCR should be cost-neutral for those not supported by firms or other entities should suffice. A statement in very restrained terms would go counter to the possibility that the draft be read as suggesting the poorly warranted creation of yet another source of travel funds. We consider it important to maintain the independence and accountability of the process that is being controlled. - We believe that the entire last paragraph of the statement should be removed. We don't agree with the reference to the "curiosity" of ALAC. That's something should not of interest to ALAC. Also we don't agree to expand the pool of TCR. Please take these comments into account to be included in the aforementioned statement (I have already requested Matt to upload this comment to the Wiki). Thank you. Best Regards, Fatima 2014-02-04 Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>:
Dear Oliver :Thank you for your explanation. I sent a comment yesterday LACRALO list, but in Spanish. Today saw the urgent request of Salanieta and sent the comment translated, but my English is not good ..
Best Regards Aída
2014-02-04 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>:
Dear Aida,
thank you for your comments which I am asking staff to include on the WIKI. Anonymous comments are current turned off due to a recent spam attack. Comments may also be forwarded by email to staff@atlarge.icann.org
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 04/02/2014 20:42, Aida Noblia wrote:
Dear Salanieta:
I was unable to add my comments on the wiki because the editor does not load, although I tried several times.
My comment was sent yesterday LACRALO < lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> list in spanish, and I copy this below, with a variant cleared on that list in another mail, in which I send it deleted the wrong paragraph .
Best Regards
I agree with the draft Salanieta with the observations made by Olivier , except the issue of financing , which I agree with Alexander. The word " sacred " could be changed to " solemn " because it is a solemnity and compliance is an essential requirement in the process of KSK .
Responsibility regarding the control of TCR , which mentions Alexander on ensuring transparency , accountability , and defending the Internet users, and is set to generic point 9 of the Statement of Commitment between the Department of Commerce U.S. and ICANN , (the first document cited by Salanieta ) .
Moreover, the entire process of the ceremony itself is a guarantee of transparency and protection of users . There are strict controls and detailed in the DNSSEC Practice Statement of the procedure for accreditation of entry of persons, etc., for the Root Zone Operator (TCR ) , your responsibilities are established and each of the steps you must follow what is proper documents governing safety at these levels of the root.
There are also prerequisites for the selection and appointment of the TCR , instructions for its function.That's part of the technical process of the company Verisign , specialist in informatic security .
As for the number of TCR , understand that it is reasonable and who applied for the position, must know and accept their demands were selected according to rules and monitored compliance with requirements and is scheduled for the 21 selected will be appointed only some will setected ( 6 or 8) for two ceremonies that simultaneously at different locations each year in four opportunities . The amount would be more to cover possible contingencies.
Regarding see major funding strictly maintain the independence of the process being controlled , between those who are appointed to control the process and who is responsible of it, in these last ICANN. This, besides exposing Alexander and there are many whose travel costs that could and perhaps should be without, given the possibility of remote participation , which is not the case of the TCR , which have be physically present .
2014-02-04 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
The call for comments from At Large closes on 7th February, 2014.
There is currently some difference in views on whether the Trusted Community Representatives (TCRs) should have indefinite terms of whether this should rotated.
Should TCRs continue to remain self funded or should they be funded?
There are also a few other important aspects of this that we would like to consult the wider community on before amending the draft. For those of you who have already commented, thank you. I am mindful that we still have not heard from others. Feel free to comment directly on the wiki via the link below or by responding to this thread.
https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Your input into this process will help us finalize the Draft. May we have your views please?
Kind Regards, Sala
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
This is just a friendly reminder in case you missed it that there is an ongoing Review on Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies. Grateful if the RALO Chairs could also ask their members for their views.
For the benefit of the general community at large and those who have just entered the community, you would have been advised at some point that anyone in At Large can have their say on aspects of Policies either individually as you comment directly on the site to the staff concerned or as we in the At Large community do it through the At Large channels by way of the "Wiki" or through email discussions.
If you would like to comment on the Draft Statement currently being developed by the At Large on this matter, visit:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Review+of+Trusted...
If you are finding that you have difficulties posting your comment on the wiki, feel free to respond to this thread and post your thoughts. On the wiki you will see that the Review Team had laid several questions for the public and wider community. This can help guide your comments and to have a fair idea of the areas that they want and value your feedback on. The At Large will close the call for comments on the 7th of February, 2014 so get your thoughts in if you want them factored in.
In case you do not have a profile to enable you to post on the Wiki (ICANN Confluence) - please contact At Large staff offline.
Kind Regards, Sala
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/
Dear All, Many thanks for your contributions on the Wiki and in the mailing list. This is a revised Draft: For those who wish to make final last minute comments, visit: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag Since there were divergent views on some of the issues, I have attempted to capture both views. *Revised Draft ALAC Statement on the TCR Review* *Background* The Affirmation of Commitment<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30se...> describes the Internet as a transformative technology that empowers people around the globe, spurs innovation, facilitates trade and commerce, and enables the free and unfettered flow of information[1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/My%20Documents/ICANN/Draft%20ALAC%20Statement%20on%20Review%20of%20TCR%20Model.docx#_ftn1>. One of the elements of the Internet's success is a highly decentralized network that enables and encourages decision-making at a local level. Notwithstanding this decentralization, global technical coordination of the Internet's underlying infrastructure - the Domain Name System[2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/My%20Documents/ICANN/Draft%20ALAC%20Statement%20on%20Review%20of%20TCR%20Model.docx#_ftn2> (DNS) - is required to ensure interoperability[3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/My%20Documents/ICANN/Draft%20ALAC%20Statement%20on%20Review%20of%20TCR%20Model.docx#_ftn3> . DNS Security Extensions[4]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/My%20Documents/ICANN/Draft%20ALAC%20Statement%20on%20Review%20of%20TCR%20Model.docx#_ftn4> (DNSSEC) is a protocol that is currently being deployed to secure the Domain Name System (DNS), the Internet's global phone book. DNSSEC adds security to the DNS by incorporating public key cryptography into the DNS hierarchy, resulting in a single, open, global Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for domain names. In DNSSEC a secure response to a query is one which is cryptographically signed and validated. An individual signature is validated by following a chain of signatures to a key which is trusted for some extra-protocol reason. ICANN, as IANA Functions Operator, is responsible for the publication of trust anchors <http://data.iana.org/root-anchors/>[5]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/My%20Documents/ICANN/Draft%20ALAC%20Statement%20on%20Review%20of%20TCR%20Model.docx#_ftn5> for the root zone of the Domain Name System. Since July 2010, the DNS Root Zone has been secured using DNSSEC. The model of using DNSSEC in the DNS Root Zone revolves around a "key signing key" (KSK) that is managed by ICANN in two secure facilities. Four times a year, a ceremony is conducted at these facilities to perform operations involving the KSK. As a key part of this process, a minimum of three from a pool of 21 trusted community representatives (TCRs) attend each ceremony to enable access to the secure materials, to witness the procedure, and to attest that the ceremony was conducted properly. *Introduction* The At Large Community recognizes the role and significance that the DNS plays in ensuring interoperability. We recognize the importance of DNSSEC in the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet in the root zone and the subsequent deployment in DNS Infrastructure. Noting that at the time this statement was written there were 427 TLDs in the root zone of which 235 are signed and that 229 have trust anchors published in the DS records in the root zone whilst 4 TLDs have trust anchors published in the ISC DLV Repository <http://stats.research.icann.org/dns/tld_report/>, we hope that in time more TLDs will move towards having trust anchors published. The Root Zone Key Signing Ceremony points to one of ICANN's important functions of preserving accountability and transparency in the manner in which it conducts its DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies. We recognize the unique combination the key-signing and TCRs make of broad participation, transparency and accountability in order to serve the central function of preserving and enhancing the stability, security and resilience of the DNS, thus engendering widespread trust. We would like to congratulate all the stakeholders involved in the KSK management process on the services since the first KSK signing ceremony till to date. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies. Following consultations with the At Large community along the questions that was raised, we found that on some issues there was divergence of views and we have captured both views. *1. * *Is the current TCR model effectively performing its function of ensuring trust* * in the KSK management process?* The current Trusted Community Representative (TCR) model has been effectively performing its functions of ensuring trust in the KSK management process; however, we make the following observations. The Abbreviation Draft of the Key Signing Ceremony Annotated Scripts, which provides a permanent trusted record of the Ceremony, does not include a definition for "EW" when these appear to be sometimes the largest number of category of people at the Ceremony. The Key Signing Ceremony Annotates Scripts do not clearly state that there are no other participants (including Camera person) present apart from those listed. * 2. * * Is the current size of the TCR pool appropriate to ensure sufficient* * participation in the ceremonies, while not overburdening the availability of* * specific volunteers?* There are two different views on this. The first view is that the current size of the TCR pool is sufficient. The second view suggests that the current size needs to be expanded to cater for unforeseeable circumstances (includes but is not limited to terrorist attacks, flight disruptions, state of emergency, civil war, etc) that could render all 21 TCRs incapable from attending to their responsibilities. There might be some merit in expanding the pool and retaining the TCRs whilst rotating them from within the pool. * 3. * *Should there be a minimum level of participation required of a TCR in order* * to be considered to be successfully discharging their duties?* No comment. * 4. * *There is no standard provision to refresh the list of TCRs except when they* * are replaced due to inability to effectively perform their function. Should* * there be a process to renew the pool of TCRs, such as using term limits or* * another rotation mechanism?* There are two views on this matter. The first view is that the existing pool and their indefinite terms are sufficient and that the 21 TCRs are more than enough to meet possible contingencies that may arise. That there is no need for process to renew the pool neither of TCRs nor to use term limits or introduce a rotation mechanism. The other view is that there is need for term limits as the original TCR mechanism is silent on the term. Rotation would protect against potential capture. There are 2.6 billion internet users should indicate that there are at least sufficient persons in the world who could meet the criteria for selection. Where there is an assumption of indefinite service as a TCR, there should be a constant requirement to disclose any and all potential conflicts of interest to disable the risk of "capture" by any stakeholder or interest. * 5. * *The current model does not compensate TCRs for their services in order to* * ensure their independence from ICANN.* * a. Should the model of TCRs paying the costs of their participation be retained?* * b. Would some form of compensation to offset the expenses incurred by the TCRs detract from their independence in performing the role?* * c. If you support compensating TCRs for their expenses, are there requirements or limitations on whom the funding organization should be?* There are two divergent views in relation to this. The first view holds that the current model where TCRs pay the costs should be retained. TCRs should be cost-neutral for those not supported by firms or other entities should suffice. To create another source of travel funds for TCRs is poor and unwarranted. The second view acknowledges the financial burden placed on TCRs. Although TCRs are volunteers, a system should be set in place that guarantees independence yet allows them to carry out their duty. A fund should be managed externally that is independent that can cater for the expenses of the TCRs.There should be limitations on those who can contribute to this fund. Any funds or gifts being awarded to the TCR should be promptly and formally disclosed through appropriate avenues. Ends Kind Regards, Sala
Dear Salanieta and All: Regarding the amount of TCR: Of the 21 TRC only must attend each time, 6 or 8 people, half of which go to a place and half to another. From the point of view of those risks posed the biggest problem is that the two places where ceremonies are are located in the same country: if something in there is no other backup occurs. But that is no reason the query. Regards 2014-02-07 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
Many thanks for your contributions on the Wiki and in the mailing list. This is a revised Draft:
For those who wish to make final last minute comments, visit: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Since there were divergent views on some of the issues, I have attempted to capture both views.
*Revised Draft ALAC Statement on the TCR Review*
*Background*
The Affirmation of Commitment< http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30se...
describes the Internet as a transformative technology that empowers people around the globe, spurs innovation, facilitates trade and commerce, and enables the free and unfettered flow of
information[1]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/My%20Documents/ICANN/Draft%20ALAC%20Statement%20on%20Review%20of%20TCR%20Model.docx#_ftn1>. One of the elements of the Internet's success is a highly decentralized network that enables and encourages decision-making at a local level. Notwithstanding this decentralization, global technical coordination of the Internet's underlying infrastructure - the Domain Name
System[2]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/My%20Documents/ICANN/Draft%20ALAC%20Statement%20on%20Review%20of%20TCR%20Model.docx#_ftn2> (DNS) - is required to ensure
interoperability[3]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/My%20Documents/ICANN/Draft%20ALAC%20Statement%20on%20Review%20of%20TCR%20Model.docx#_ftn3> .
DNS Security Extensions[4]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/My%20Documents/ICANN/Draft%20ALAC%20Statement%20on%20Review%20of%20TCR%20Model.docx#_ftn4> (DNSSEC) is a protocol that is currently being deployed to secure the Domain Name System (DNS), the Internet's global phone book. DNSSEC adds security to the DNS by incorporating public key cryptography into the DNS hierarchy, resulting in a single, open, global Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for domain names.
In DNSSEC a secure response to a query is one which is cryptographically signed and validated. An individual signature is validated by following a chain of signatures to a key which is trusted for some extra-protocol reason. ICANN, as IANA Functions Operator, is responsible for the publication of trust anchors <http://data.iana.org/root-anchors/
[5]<file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/My%20Documents/ICANN/Draft%20ALAC%20Statement%20on%20Review%20of%20TCR%20Model.docx#_ftn5> for the root zone of the Domain Name System.
Since July 2010, the DNS Root Zone has been secured using DNSSEC. The model of using DNSSEC in the DNS Root Zone revolves around a "key signing key" (KSK) that is managed by ICANN in two secure facilities. Four times a year, a ceremony is conducted at these facilities to perform operations involving the KSK. As a key part of this process, a minimum of three from a pool of 21 trusted community representatives (TCRs) attend each ceremony to enable access to the secure materials, to witness the procedure, and to attest that the ceremony was conducted properly.
*Introduction*
The At Large Community recognizes the role and significance that the DNS plays in ensuring interoperability. We recognize the importance of DNSSEC in the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet in the root zone and the subsequent deployment in DNS Infrastructure. Noting that at the time this statement was written there were 427 TLDs in the root zone of which 235 are signed and that 229 have trust anchors published in the DS records in the root zone whilst 4 TLDs have trust anchors published in the ISC DLV Repository <http://stats.research.icann.org/dns/tld_report/>, we hope that in time more TLDs will move towards having trust anchors published.
The Root Zone Key Signing Ceremony points to one of ICANN's important functions of preserving accountability and transparency in the manner in which it conducts its DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies.
We recognize the unique combination the key-signing and TCRs make of broad participation, transparency and accountability in order to serve the central function of preserving and enhancing the stability, security and resilience of the DNS, thus engendering widespread trust.
We would like to congratulate all the stakeholders involved in the KSK management process on the services since the first KSK signing ceremony till to date. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies. Following consultations with the At Large community along the questions that was raised, we found that on some issues there was divergence of views and we have captured both views.
*1. * *Is the current TCR model effectively performing its function of ensuring trust*
* in the KSK management process?*
The current Trusted Community Representative (TCR) model has been effectively performing its functions of ensuring trust in the KSK management process; however, we make the following observations.
The Abbreviation Draft of the Key Signing Ceremony Annotated Scripts, which provides a permanent trusted record of the Ceremony, does not include a definition for "EW" when these appear to be sometimes the largest number of category of people at the Ceremony. The Key Signing Ceremony Annotates Scripts do not clearly state that there are no other participants (including Camera person) present apart from those listed.
* 2. * * Is the current size of the TCR pool appropriate to ensure sufficient*
* participation in the ceremonies, while not overburdening the availability of*
* specific volunteers?*
There are two different views on this. The first view is that the current size of the TCR pool is sufficient. The second view suggests that the current size needs to be expanded to cater for unforeseeable circumstances (includes but is not limited to terrorist attacks, flight disruptions, state of emergency, civil war, etc) that could render all 21 TCRs incapable from attending to their responsibilities. There might be some merit in expanding the pool and retaining the TCRs whilst rotating them from within the pool.
* 3. * *Should there be a minimum level of participation required of a TCR in order*
* to be considered to be successfully discharging their duties?*
No comment.
* 4. * *There is no standard provision to refresh the list of TCRs except when they*
* are replaced due to inability to effectively perform their function. Should*
* there be a process to renew the pool of TCRs, such as using term limits or*
* another rotation mechanism?*
There are two views on this matter. The first view is that the existing pool and their indefinite terms are sufficient and that the 21 TCRs are more than enough to meet possible contingencies that may arise. That there is no need for process to renew the pool neither of TCRs nor to use term limits or introduce a rotation mechanism.
The other view is that there is need for term limits as the original TCR mechanism is silent on the term. Rotation would protect against potential capture. There are 2.6 billion internet users should indicate that there are at least sufficient persons in the world who could meet the criteria for selection. Where there is an assumption of indefinite service as a TCR, there should be a constant requirement to disclose any and all potential conflicts of interest to disable the risk of "capture" by any stakeholder or interest.
* 5. * *The current model does not compensate TCRs for their services in order to*
* ensure their independence from ICANN.*
* a. Should the model of TCRs paying the costs of their participation be retained?*
* b. Would some form of compensation to offset the expenses incurred by the TCRs detract from their independence in performing the role?*
* c. If you support compensating TCRs for their expenses, are there requirements or limitations on whom the funding organization should be?*
There are two divergent views in relation to this. The first view holds that the current model where TCRs pay the costs should be retained. TCRs should be cost-neutral for those not supported by firms or other entities should suffice. To create another source of travel funds for TCRs is poor and unwarranted.
The second view acknowledges the financial burden placed on TCRs. Although TCRs are volunteers, a system should be set in place that guarantees independence yet allows them to carry out their duty. A fund should be managed externally that is independent that can cater for the expenses of the TCRs.There should be limitations on those who can contribute to this fund. Any funds or gifts being awarded to the TCR should be promptly and formally disclosed through appropriate avenues.
Ends
Kind Regards,
Sala _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia
Call for comments close today so there is still time for those wanting to put make last minute comments. Visit: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag Dear Aida, Message below: On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Salanieta and All:
Regarding the amount of TCR: Of the 21 TRC only must attend each time, 6 or 8 people, half of which go to a place and half to another. From the point of view of those risks posed the biggest problem is that the two places where ceremonies are are located in the same country: if something in there is no other backup occurs. But that is no reason the query. Regards
That's a very excellent point. Whilst I had drafted in case of unforseeable circumstances, I can try to weave this in as well.
Thank Salanieta. Glad to be useful, I noticed that point just for risk. But it was not asked, so I did not want to put before. Regarding the 21 TRC, to select one of the requirements is required to be selected from people from around the globe, which I thought was good warranty. Regards 2014-02-07 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>:
Call for comments close today so there is still time for those wanting to put make last minute comments. Visit: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Dear Aida,
Message below:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Salanieta and All:
Regarding the amount of TCR: Of the 21 TRC only must attend each time, 6 or 8 people, half of which go to a place and half to another. From the point of view of those risks posed the biggest problem is that the two places where ceremonies are are located in the same country: if something in there is no other backup occurs. But that is no reason the query. Regards
That's a very excellent point. Whilst I had drafted in case of unforseeable circumstances, I can try to weave this in as well.
-- Aida Noblia
Dear Sala, I am reviewing the Statement & very much like its early sections but I have noticed a couple of things which probably need your attention: - In the response to Q4, the first paragraph starts with "That" and this needs to be improved grammatically. In the second paragraph of the response to Q4 there is a sentence that needs cleaning up: "There are 2.6 billion internet users should indicate that there are at least sufficient persons in the world who could meet the criteria for selection." --> With 2.6 billion Internet users in the world, there should be enough people in the world who could meet the criteria for selection - Answer to Q5: you mention that there are two points of view and I am not sure that this is the case. What I understood from Alejandro is that the TCRs should be cost neutral which in my understanding means some organisation has to pick up the costs, whether their firm or whether a third party. This might not be called "ICANN travel support", which is what effectively I understood Alejandro to object to but could definitely be some allocation that would make sure costs were paid by the TCR. Perhaps you might like to check this before affirming there's divergence. I am also concerned that we are not quite answering the questions in Q5. The vote will launch on Monday 0:00 UTC - so thanks for looking into this during the week-end! Kind regards, Olivier On 07/02/2014 21:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
Call for comments close today so there is still time for those wanting to put make last minute comments. Visit: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Dear Aida,
Message below:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Salanieta and All:
Regarding the amount of TCR: Of the 21 TRC only must attend each time, 6 or 8 people, half of which go to a place and half to another. From the point of view of those risks posed the biggest problem is that the two places where ceremonies are are located in the same country: if something in there is no other backup occurs. But that is no reason the query. Regards
That's a very excellent point. Whilst I had drafted in case of unforseeable circumstances, I can try to weave this in as well.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Olivier, I will certainly look into this this evening. If there are other comments and feedback, please feel free to send your views in today so I can make adjustments. Best Regards, Sala On Saturday, February 8, 2014, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Sala,
I am reviewing the Statement & very much like its early sections but I have noticed a couple of things which probably need your attention:
- In the response to Q4, the first paragraph starts with "That" and this needs to be improved grammatically. In the second paragraph of the response to Q4 there is a sentence that needs cleaning up: "There are 2.6 billion internet users should indicate that there are at least sufficient persons in the world who could meet the criteria for selection." --> With 2.6 billion Internet users in the world, there should be enough people in the world who could meet the criteria for selection
- Answer to Q5: you mention that there are two points of view and I am not sure that this is the case. What I understood from Alejandro is that the TCRs should be cost neutral which in my understanding means some organisation has to pick up the costs, whether their firm or whether a third party. This might not be called "ICANN travel support", which is what effectively I understood Alejandro to object to but could definitely be some allocation that would make sure costs were paid by the TCR. Perhaps you might like to check this before affirming there's divergence.
I am also concerned that we are not quite answering the questions in Q5. The vote will launch on Monday 0:00 UTC - so thanks for looking into this during the week-end!
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 07/02/2014 21:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
Call for comments close today so there is still time for those wanting to put make last minute comments. Visit: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Dear Aida,
Message below:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com<javascript:;>> wrote:
Dear Salanieta and All:
Regarding the amount of TCR: Of the 21 TRC only must attend each time, 6 or 8 people, half of which go to a place and half to another. From the point of view of those risks posed the biggest problem is that the two places where ceremonies are are located in the same country: if something in there is no other backup occurs. But that is no reason the query. Regards
That's a very excellent point. Whilst I had drafted in case of unforseeable circumstances, I can try to weave this in as well.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <javascript:;> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Salanieta, Oliver , all: I agree that the costs could be paid by others. The point was that ICANN will not pay because it is part of the ceremony and to maintain the objectivity of the TCR, which were not involved and witnessing part at a time. Regards 2014-02-07 22:24 GMT-02:00 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>:
Dear Sala,
I am reviewing the Statement & very much like its early sections but I have noticed a couple of things which probably need your attention:
- In the response to Q4, the first paragraph starts with "That" and this needs to be improved grammatically. In the second paragraph of the response to Q4 there is a sentence that needs cleaning up: "There are 2.6 billion internet users should indicate that there are at least sufficient persons in the world who could meet the criteria for selection." --> With 2.6 billion Internet users in the world, there should be enough people in the world who could meet the criteria for selection
- Answer to Q5: you mention that there are two points of view and I am not sure that this is the case. What I understood from Alejandro is that the TCRs should be cost neutral which in my understanding means some organisation has to pick up the costs, whether their firm or whether a third party. This might not be called "ICANN travel support", which is what effectively I understood Alejandro to object to but could definitely be some allocation that would make sure costs were paid by the TCR. Perhaps you might like to check this before affirming there's divergence.
I am also concerned that we are not quite answering the questions in Q5. The vote will launch on Monday 0:00 UTC - so thanks for looking into this during the week-end!
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 07/02/2014 21:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
Call for comments close today so there is still time for those wanting to put make last minute comments. Visit: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Dear Aida,
Message below:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Salanieta and All:
Regarding the amount of TCR: Of the 21 TRC only must attend each time, 6 or 8 people, half of which go to a place and half to another. From the point of view of those risks posed the biggest problem is that the two places where ceremonies are are located in the same country: if something in there is no other backup occurs. But that is no reason the query. Regards
That's a very excellent point. Whilst I had drafted in case of unforseeable circumstances, I can try to weave this in as well.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia
Hi, There could be a funding mechanism set up by ICANN which would give TCRs independence from ICANN. See IO office for an example. -- Cheers, McTim On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> wrote:
Salanieta, Oliver , all:
I agree that the costs could be paid by others. The point was that ICANN will not pay because it is part of the ceremony and to maintain the objectivity of the TCR, which were not involved and witnessing part at a time.
Regards
2014-02-07 22:24 GMT-02:00 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>:
Dear Sala,
I am reviewing the Statement & very much like its early sections but I have noticed a couple of things which probably need your attention:
- In the response to Q4, the first paragraph starts with "That" and this needs to be improved grammatically. In the second paragraph of the response to Q4 there is a sentence that needs cleaning up: "There are 2.6 billion internet users should indicate that there are at least sufficient persons in the world who could meet the criteria for selection." --> With 2.6 billion Internet users in the world, there should be enough people in the world who could meet the criteria for selection
- Answer to Q5: you mention that there are two points of view and I am not sure that this is the case. What I understood from Alejandro is that the TCRs should be cost neutral which in my understanding means some organisation has to pick up the costs, whether their firm or whether a third party. This might not be called "ICANN travel support", which is what effectively I understood Alejandro to object to but could definitely be some allocation that would make sure costs were paid by the TCR. Perhaps you might like to check this before affirming there's divergence.
I am also concerned that we are not quite answering the questions in Q5. The vote will launch on Monday 0:00 UTC - so thanks for looking into this during the week-end!
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 07/02/2014 21:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
Call for comments close today so there is still time for those wanting to put make last minute comments. Visit: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Dear Aida,
Message below:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Salanieta and All:
Regarding the amount of TCR: Of the 21 TRC only must attend each time, 6 or 8 people, half of which go to a place and half to another. From the point of view of those risks posed the biggest problem is that the two places where ceremonies are are located in the same country: if something in there is no other backup occurs. But that is no reason the query. Regards
That's a very excellent point. Whilst I had drafted in case of unforseeable circumstances, I can try to weave this in as well.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Thanks McTim - that's exactly the sort of suggestion which I think would be welcome in the Comment. Kind regards, Olivier On 08/02/2014 16:58, McTim wrote:
Hi,
There could be a funding mechanism set up by ICANN which would give TCRs independence from ICANN.
See IO office for an example.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Maybe it could be .. would have to be something independent because for example if Verisign understand that finance is not for being the company that makes the technical part. I do not remember where I read the suggestion that it could be an independent body and put sample Unesco. Aída 2014-02-08 14:20 GMT-02:00 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>:
Thanks McTim - that's exactly the sort of suggestion which I think would be welcome in the Comment. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 08/02/2014 16:58, McTim wrote:
Hi,
There could be a funding mechanism set up by ICANN which would give TCRs independence from ICANN.
See IO office for an example.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia
Thanks McTim, Aida, Olivier. Keep those thoughts coming. Sent from my iPad
On Feb 9, 2014, at 6:24 AM, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe it could be .. would have to be something independent because for example if Verisign understand that finance is not for being the company that makes the technical part. I do not remember where I read the suggestion that it could be an independent body and put sample Unesco.
Aída
2014-02-08 14:20 GMT-02:00 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>:
Thanks McTim - that's exactly the sort of suggestion which I think would be welcome in the Comment. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 08/02/2014 16:58, McTim wrote: Hi,
There could be a funding mechanism set up by ICANN which would give TCRs independence from ICANN.
See IO office for an example.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear All, This is to advise that further edits have been made to reflect the new responses that came. Changes are in *bold and blue*. See: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag Kind Regards, Sala
Posted some comments at the wiki https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag Kind Regards, Dev Anand On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
This is to advise that further edits have been made to reflect the new responses that came. Changes are in *bold and blue*.
See: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Kind Regards, Sala _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Dev and All_ The proportion of the world population and the number of TCR is not relevant for the purposes of these ceremonies. This ratio is determined by the specific needs of the ceremony, not proportion the world population. There are four times in the year they are made ceremonies. To them is determined by technical rules attending 6 or 8 people out of 21 that are available. Increased availability does not mean most people in the ceremonies. The question is not about how many people attend the ceremonies but many are available for selection. Kind Regards Aída 2014-02-10 21:38 GMT-02:00 Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>:
Posted some comments at the wiki https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
This is to advise that further edits have been made to reflect the new responses that came. Changes are in *bold and blue*.
See: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Kind Regards, Sala _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia
Disclaimer: are only two times a year the ceremonies. There are two ceremonies at a time, in total there are four ceremonies a year. Aída 2014-02-11 3:04 GMT-02:00 Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>:
Dear Dev and All_
The proportion of the world population and the number of TCR is not relevant for the purposes of these ceremonies. This ratio is determined by the specific needs of the ceremony, not proportion the world population.
There are four times in the year they are made ceremonies. To them is determined by technical rules attending 6 or 8 people out of 21 that are available. Increased availability does not mean most people in the ceremonies. The question is not about how many people attend the ceremonies but many are available for selection.
Kind Regards
Aída
2014-02-10 21:38 GMT-02:00 Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>:
Posted some comments at the wiki https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
This is to advise that further edits have been made to reflect the new responses that came. Changes are in *bold and blue*.
See: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Kind Regards, Sala _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia
-- Aida Noblia
Hola a todos: Al comentario de Dev: en la wiki: La línea "La posibilidad de contar con la firma al mismo tiempo ....." es confuso para mí. Según tengo entendido la ceremonia de firma clave, cualquier acto requiere viajar por algunos de 7 Oficiales Crypto a una de las dos instalaciones en los EE.UU.. Creo que no hay acciones simultáneas que ocurren en ambas instalaciones al mismo tiempo. Voy a apreciar cualquier aclaración al respecto. Dev y todos: respecto al pedido de aclaración que Ud hizo sobre que se hacen dos ceremonias por vez: El documento "Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies" dice en uno de sus párrafos Pego abajo los textos y en negrita lo que copie textual. "De los 21 TCR , siete tienen las credenciales como "oficiales " cripto (COS) *para cada uno de los dos instalaciones*, y los siete restantes actúan como "accionistas clave de recuperación " que sólo participar en las ceremonias en el caso de que el número requerido de las OP no pueden participar o existe la necesidad de reconstruir el KSK después de un evento imprevisto. *De los siete* objetores de conciencia *para cada instalación*, ICANN espera tener *cuatro asisten cada ceremonia* ." En otro de los documentos de IANA, está más detallado y dice que ambas ceremonias serán en dos diferentes lugares de un mismo país, al que menciona, y aclara que una en la zona Este y otra en la zona Oeste. Estoy buscando en cuál de los documentos leí esto. Es en el referido específicamente a las ceremonias de la KSK. No recuerdo si es un txt.. refieren a normas técnicas de seguridad informática. "Of the 21 TCRs, seven are credentialed as "crypto officers" (COs)* for each of the two* *facilities*, and the remaining seven act as "recovery key shareholders" who only participate in ceremonies in the event the requisite number of COs are unable to participate or there is a need to rebuild the KSK following an unforeseen event. Of the seven COs for each facility, ICANN aims to have *four attend each ceremony.*." In other documents IANA, is more detailed and it says both ceremonies will be in two different places in the same country, which mentions and clarifies that in the east and another in the west. I am looking at which of the documents I read this. It is specifically referred to in the ceremonies of the KSK. I do not remember if it's a txt .. refer to technical standards of information security. Saludos a todos Aída " 2014-02-11 3:19 GMT-02:00 Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>:
Disclaimer: are only two times a year the ceremonies. There are two ceremonies at a time, in total there are four ceremonies a year.
Aída
2014-02-11 3:04 GMT-02:00 Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>:
Dear Dev and All_
The proportion of the world population and the number of TCR is not relevant for the purposes of these ceremonies. This ratio is determined by the specific needs of the ceremony, not proportion the world population.
There are four times in the year they are made ceremonies. To them is determined by technical rules attending 6 or 8 people out of 21 that are available. Increased availability does not mean most people in the ceremonies. The question is not about how many people attend the ceremonies but many are available for selection.
Kind Regards
Aída
2014-02-10 21:38 GMT-02:00 Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>:
Posted some comments at the wiki https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
This is to advise that further edits have been made to reflect the new responses that came. Changes are in *bold and blue*.
See: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Kind Regards, Sala _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia
-- Aida Noblia
-- Aida Noblia
Dear All, Many thanks for your further thoughts on the matter and suggested edits. I will be reviewing these to make some final adjustments. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> wrote:
Hola a todos:
Al comentario de Dev: en la wiki:
La línea "La posibilidad de contar con la firma al mismo tiempo ....." es confuso para mí. Según tengo entendido la ceremonia de firma clave, cualquier acto requiere viajar por algunos de 7 Oficiales Crypto a una de las dos instalaciones en los EE.UU.. Creo que no hay acciones simultáneas que ocurren en ambas instalaciones al mismo tiempo. Voy a apreciar cualquier aclaración al respecto.
Dev y todos: respecto al pedido de aclaración que Ud hizo sobre que se hacen dos ceremonias por vez:
El documento "Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies" dice en uno de sus párrafos Pego abajo los textos y en negrita lo que copie textual.
"De los 21 TCR , siete tienen las credenciales como "oficiales " cripto (COS) *para cada uno de los dos instalaciones*, y los siete restantes actúan como "accionistas clave de recuperación " que sólo participar en las ceremonias en el caso de que el número requerido de las OP no pueden participar o existe la necesidad de reconstruir el KSK después de un evento imprevisto. *De los siete* objetores de conciencia *para cada instalación*, ICANN espera tener *cuatro asisten cada ceremonia* ."
En otro de los documentos de IANA, está más detallado y dice que ambas ceremonias serán en dos diferentes lugares de un mismo país, al que menciona, y aclara que una en la zona Este y otra en la zona Oeste. Estoy buscando en cuál de los documentos leí esto. Es en el referido específicamente a las ceremonias de la KSK. No recuerdo si es un txt.. refieren a normas técnicas de seguridad informática.
"Of the 21 TCRs, seven are credentialed as "crypto officers" (COs)* for each of the two*
*facilities*, and the remaining seven act as "recovery key shareholders" who only
participate in ceremonies in the event the requisite number of COs are unable to
participate or there is a need to rebuild the KSK following an unforeseen event. Of
the seven COs for each facility, ICANN aims to have *four attend each ceremony.*."
In other documents IANA, is more detailed and it says both ceremonies will be in two different places in the same country, which mentions and clarifies that in the east and another in the west. I am looking at which of the documents I read this. It is specifically referred to in the ceremonies of the KSK. I do not remember if it's a txt .. refer to technical standards of information security.
Saludos a todos
Aída
"
2014-02-11 3:19 GMT-02:00 Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>:
Disclaimer: are only two times a year the ceremonies. There are two ceremonies at a time, in total there are four ceremonies a year.
Aída
2014-02-11 3:04 GMT-02:00 Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>:
Dear Dev and All_
The proportion of the world population and the number of TCR is not relevant for the purposes of these ceremonies. This ratio is determined
by
the specific needs of the ceremony, not proportion the world population.
There are four times in the year they are made ceremonies. To them is determined by technical rules attending 6 or 8 people out of 21 that are available. Increased availability does not mean most people in the ceremonies. The question is not about how many people attend the ceremonies but many are available for selection.
Kind Regards
Aída
2014-02-10 21:38 GMT-02:00 Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>:
Posted some comments at the wiki https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
This is to advise that further edits have been made to reflect the
new
responses that came. Changes are in *bold and blue*.
See: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Kind Regards, Sala _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia
-- Aida Noblia
-- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Thanks Aida for your attention to this. I've been reading the document titled "DNSSEC Root Zone High Level Technical Architecture" at http://www.root-dnssec.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/draft-icann-dnssec-arc... pages 8 to 10 talks about the Key Signing Key (KSK) Ceremonies. Some excerpts: "The ceremonies will alternate between mirror sites to exercise their operational readiness in case of emergency..... ....Once a new KSK is generated during a key generation ceremony, it is backed up in encrypted form on a smart card and distributed to the mirror site for import and storage. The key ceremony is inclusive of these events and is not deemed complete until they have all been performed. Key signing ceremonies (during which the contents of the KSR are signed) are more frequent than KSK generation ceremonies and, though they alternate between sites, a given signing ceremony does not involve the corresponding mirror site." "The KSKs for the DNSSEC root zone system will be maintained at two offline sites each mirroring the other in functionality. To meet DoC requirements, the two sites maintaining the private half of the KSKs will be geographically dispersed and within the United States: one in Los Angeles, California (near ICANN headquarters) and the other outside the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area" Therefore, this document indicates that the two facilities are NOT used at the same time for any ceremony, but rather alternates between the two venues. Kind Regards, Dev Anand On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> wrote:
Hola a todos:
Al comentario de Dev: en la wiki:
La línea "La posibilidad de contar con la firma al mismo tiempo ....." es confuso para mí. Según tengo entendido la ceremonia de firma clave, cualquier acto requiere viajar por algunos de 7 Oficiales Crypto a una de las dos instalaciones en los EE.UU.. Creo que no hay acciones simultáneas que ocurren en ambas instalaciones al mismo tiempo. Voy a apreciar cualquier aclaración al respecto.
Dev y todos: respecto al pedido de aclaración que Ud hizo sobre que se hacen dos ceremonias por vez:
El documento "Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies" dice en uno de sus párrafos Pego abajo los textos y en negrita lo que copie textual.
"De los 21 TCR , siete tienen las credenciales como "oficiales " cripto (COS) *para cada uno de los dos instalaciones*, y los siete restantes actúan como "accionistas clave de recuperación " que sólo participar en las ceremonias en el caso de que el número requerido de las OP no pueden participar o existe la necesidad de reconstruir el KSK después de un evento imprevisto. *De los siete* objetores de conciencia *para cada instalación*, ICANN espera tener *cuatro asisten cada ceremonia* ."
En otro de los documentos de IANA, está más detallado y dice que ambas ceremonias serán en dos diferentes lugares de un mismo país, al que menciona, y aclara que una en la zona Este y otra en la zona Oeste. Estoy buscando en cuál de los documentos leí esto. Es en el referido específicamente a las ceremonias de la KSK. No recuerdo si es un txt.. refieren a normas técnicas de seguridad informática.
"Of the 21 TCRs, seven are credentialed as "crypto officers" (COs)* for each of the two*
*facilities*, and the remaining seven act as "recovery key shareholders" who only
participate in ceremonies in the event the requisite number of COs are unable to
participate or there is a need to rebuild the KSK following an unforeseen event. Of
the seven COs for each facility, ICANN aims to have *four attend each ceremony.*."
In other documents IANA, is more detailed and it says both ceremonies will be in two different places in the same country, which mentions and clarifies that in the east and another in the west. I am looking at which of the documents I read this. It is specifically referred to in the ceremonies of the KSK. I do not remember if it's a txt .. refer to technical standards of information security.
Saludos a todos
Aída
"
2014-02-11 3:19 GMT-02:00 Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>:
Disclaimer: are only two times a year the ceremonies. There are two ceremonies at a time, in total there are four ceremonies a year.
Aída
2014-02-11 3:04 GMT-02:00 Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>:
Dear Dev and All_
The proportion of the world population and the number of TCR is not relevant for the purposes of these ceremonies. This ratio is determined
by
the specific needs of the ceremony, not proportion the world population.
There are four times in the year they are made ceremonies. To them is determined by technical rules attending 6 or 8 people out of 21 that are available. Increased availability does not mean most people in the ceremonies. The question is not about how many people attend the ceremonies but many are available for selection.
Kind Regards
Aída
2014-02-10 21:38 GMT-02:00 Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>:
Posted some comments at the wiki https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
This is to advise that further edits have been made to reflect the
new
responses that came. Changes are in *bold and blue*.
See: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Kind Regards, Sala _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia
-- Aida Noblia
-- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Thanks Dev for direction and clarification. That's where I read it. Actually I never thought I will use the facilities for any kind of ceremonies independent of each other, but there is as two complementary parts are related. I think that says mirror for a ceremony. I'm not a computer technician. This topic is highly regulated by technical standards and Verisign company offering computer security. Regarding the TCR think it is important to note that the amount is sufficient to meet the requirements and that of 21 selected 6 or 8. If a ceremony without the other as you mention can be done with more reason is that I do not need more than 21 TCR. Greetings to all 2014-02-11 17:59 GMT-02:00 Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>:
Thanks Aida for your attention to this.
I've been reading the document titled "DNSSEC Root Zone High Level Technical Architecture" at
http://www.root-dnssec.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/draft-icann-dnssec-arc...
pages 8 to 10 talks about the Key Signing Key (KSK) Ceremonies.
Some excerpts:
"The ceremonies will alternate between mirror sites to exercise their operational readiness in case of emergency.....
....Once a new KSK is generated during a key generation ceremony, it is backed up in encrypted form on a smart card and distributed to the mirror site for import and storage. The key ceremony is inclusive of these events and is not deemed complete until they have all been performed. Key signing ceremonies (during which the contents of the KSR are signed) are more frequent than KSK generation ceremonies and, though they alternate between sites, a given signing ceremony does not involve the corresponding mirror site."
"The KSKs for the DNSSEC root zone system will be maintained at two offline sites each mirroring the other in functionality. To meet DoC requirements, the two sites maintaining the private half of the KSKs will be geographically dispersed and within the United States: one in Los Angeles, California (near ICANN headquarters) and the other outside the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area"
Therefore, this document indicates that the two facilities are NOT used at the same time for any ceremony, but rather alternates between the two venues.
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>wrote:
Hola a todos:
Al comentario de Dev: en la wiki:
La línea "La posibilidad de contar con la firma al mismo tiempo ....." es confuso para mí. Según tengo entendido la ceremonia de firma clave, cualquier acto requiere viajar por algunos de 7 Oficiales Crypto a una de las dos instalaciones en los EE.UU.. Creo que no hay acciones simultáneas que ocurren en ambas instalaciones al mismo tiempo. Voy a apreciar cualquier aclaración al respecto.
Dev y todos: respecto al pedido de aclaración que Ud hizo sobre que se hacen dos ceremonias por vez:
El documento "Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies" dice en uno de sus párrafos Pego abajo los textos y en negrita lo que copie textual.
"De los 21 TCR , siete tienen las credenciales como "oficiales " cripto (COS) *para cada uno de los dos instalaciones*, y los siete restantes
actúan como "accionistas clave de recuperación " que sólo participar en las ceremonias en el caso de que el número requerido de las OP no pueden participar o existe la necesidad de reconstruir el KSK después de un evento imprevisto. *De los siete* objetores de conciencia *para cada instalación*, ICANN espera tener *cuatro asisten cada ceremonia* ."
En otro de los documentos de IANA, está más detallado y dice que ambas ceremonias serán en dos diferentes lugares de un mismo país, al que menciona, y aclara que una en la zona Este y otra en la zona Oeste. Estoy buscando en cuál de los documentos leí esto. Es en el referido específicamente a las ceremonias de la KSK. No recuerdo si es un txt.. refieren a normas técnicas de seguridad informática.
"Of the 21 TCRs, seven are credentialed as "crypto officers" (COs)* for each of the two*
*facilities*, and the remaining seven act as "recovery key shareholders"
who only
participate in ceremonies in the event the requisite number of COs are unable to
participate or there is a need to rebuild the KSK following an unforeseen event. Of
the seven COs for each facility, ICANN aims to have *four attend each ceremony.*."
In other documents IANA, is more detailed and it says both ceremonies will be in two different places in the same country, which mentions and clarifies that in the east and another in the west. I am looking at which of the documents I read this. It is specifically referred to in the ceremonies of the KSK. I do not remember if it's a txt .. refer to technical standards of information security.
Saludos a todos
Aída
"
2014-02-11 3:19 GMT-02:00 Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>:
Disclaimer: are only two times a year the ceremonies. There are two ceremonies at a time, in total there are four ceremonies a year.
Aída
2014-02-11 3:04 GMT-02:00 Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>:
Dear Dev and All_
The proportion of the world population and the number of TCR is not relevant for the purposes of these ceremonies. This ratio is
determined by
the specific needs of the ceremony, not proportion the world population.
There are four times in the year they are made ceremonies. To them is determined by technical rules attending 6 or 8 people out of 21 that are available. Increased availability does not mean most people in the ceremonies. The question is not about how many people attend the ceremonies but many are available for selection.
Kind Regards
Aída
2014-02-10 21:38 GMT-02:00 Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>:
Posted some comments at the wiki https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
This is to advise that further edits have been made to reflect the
new
responses that came. Changes are in *bold and blue*.
See: https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Kind Regards, Sala _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia
-- Aida Noblia
-- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia
Many thanks Aida for taking the time to send your thoughts. It is much appreciated. Warm Regards, Sala On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Salanieta:
I was unable to add my comments on the wiki because the editor does not load, although I tried several times.
My comment was sent yesterday LACRALO < lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> list in spanish, and I copy this below, with a variant cleared on that list in another mail, in which I send it deleted the wrong paragraph .
Best Regards
I agree with the draft Salanieta with the observations made by Olivier , except the issue of financing , which I agree with Alexander. The word " sacred " could be changed to " solemn " because it is a solemnity and compliance is an essential requirement in the process of KSK .
Responsibility regarding the control of TCR , which mentions Alexander on ensuring transparency , accountability , and defending the Internet users, and is set to generic point 9 of the Statement of Commitment between the Department of Commerce U.S. and ICANN , (the first document cited by Salanieta ) .
Moreover, the entire process of the ceremony itself is a guarantee of transparency and protection of users . There are strict controls and detailed in the DNSSEC Practice Statement of the procedure for accreditation of entry of persons, etc., for the Root Zone Operator (TCR ) , your responsibilities are established and each of the steps you must follow what is proper documents governing safety at these levels of the root.
There are also prerequisites for the selection and appointment of the TCR , instructions for its function.That's part of the technical process of the company Verisign , specialist in informatic security .
As for the number of TCR , understand that it is reasonable and who applied for the position, must know and accept their demands were selected according to rules and monitored compliance with requirements and is scheduled for the 21 selected will be appointed only some will setected ( 6 or 8) for two ceremonies that simultaneously at different locations each year in four opportunities . The amount would be more to cover possible contingencies.
Regarding see major funding strictly maintain the independence of the process being controlled , between those who are appointed to control the process and who is responsible of it, in these last ICANN. This, besides exposing Alexander and there are many whose travel costs that could and perhaps should be without, given the possibility of remote participation , which is not the case of the TCR , which have be physically present .
2014-02-04 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
The call for comments from At Large closes on 7th February, 2014.
There is currently some difference in views on whether the Trusted Community Representatives (TCRs) should have indefinite terms of whether this should rotated.
Should TCRs continue to remain self funded or should they be funded?
There are also a few other important aspects of this that we would like to consult the wider community on before amending the draft. For those of you who have already commented, thank you. I am mindful that we still have not heard from others. Feel free to comment directly on the wiki via the link below or by responding to this thread.
https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag
Your input into this process will help us finalize the Draft. May we have your views please?
Kind Regards, Sala
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
This is just a friendly reminder in case you missed it that there is an ongoing Review on Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies. Grateful if the RALO Chairs could also ask their members for their views.
For the benefit of the general community at large and those who have just entered the community, you would have been advised at some point that anyone in At Large can have their say on aspects of Policies either individually as you comment directly on the site to the staff concerned or as we in the At Large community do it through the At Large channels by way of the "Wiki" or through email discussions.
If you would like to comment on the Draft Statement currently being developed by the At Large on this matter, visit:
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Review+of+Trusted...
If you are finding that you have difficulties posting your comment on
the
wiki, feel free to respond to this thread and post your thoughts. On the wiki you will see that the Review Team had laid several questions for the public and wider community. This can help guide your comments and to have a fair idea of the areas that they want and value your feedback on. The At Large will close the call for comments on the 7th of February, 2014 so get your thoughts in if you want them factored in.
In case you do not have a profile to enable you to post on the Wiki (ICANN Confluence) - please contact At Large staff offline.
Kind Regards, Sala
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Director Pasifika Nexus P.O Box 19179 Suva *FIJI* Cell: +679 9974527 Tel: +679 3544828 E: sala@pasifikanexus.nu Website: www.pasifikanexus.nu
participants (8)
-
Aida Noblia -
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Fatima Cambronero -
McTim -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro -
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro -
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro