[Sorry for the slow response — a bit busy]

Milton,

You are asserting that the RZM (currently, Verisign) can unilaterally change the root zone? But of course this is not true because of its cooperative agreement with NTIA.


Actually, it is true.  Technically, the only entity on the planet today who can change the root zone is Verisign.  They 

  1. Maintain the root zone database ("the root zone file");
  2. Hold the Zone Signing Key
  3. Run the hidden master from which the root server operators pull the root zone
This gives the Root Zone Maintainer the unilateral ability to both modify the root zone and have that zone published.  Currently, there are NO technical limitations on what they can do with the root zone, only administrative limitations — if Verisign went stark raving mad and (say) decided to remove all competing TLDs from the root zone, they could do so (for those resolvers that query the root servers while the edited zone remained up).  Of course, it is likely that in very short order, they would (a) no longer be the Root Zone Maintainer and (b) no longer be a viable going concern due to the myriad of lawsuits that would instantly appear.  However, pragmatically speaking, the fact that the Root Zone Maintainer would turn into a smoldering crater is a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. 

Perhaps that is what you mean by “legal repercussions.”


Yes. While it is true that the Root Zone Maintainer is under contractual terms to get explicit authorization from the Root Zone Administrator prior to making changes, there is no technical mechanism by which that is enforced. 

In terms of how the accountability model changes, I think many of us are viewing the Verisign Cooperative Agreement as a legacy arrangement that should disappear after the transition.


An interesting assumption. 

Which means that the IANA functions operator would either be the contracter for the RZM function, or the Contract Co would contract for it directly. Between those two options it’s clear that there are significant differences in the accountability model, and either of those is significantly different from the status quo, which relies on the NTIA. So again I don’t quite grasp what you are asking about.


I was asking about Jordan's response to the scenario in which the IANA Function Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer are merged (which again, I neither support nor oppose), thus creating a single entity that receives, validates, and implements change requests.  I gather he feels the accountability mechanism would be vastly different than if the IFO and RZM are separate. Since there is a single entity in both scenarios that, pragmatically speaking, holds all the cards and that entity is restrained only by contractual terms which would presumably be essentially the same in both cases, I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference.

Regards,
-drc