Great list Chuck. I’m particularly interested in some of the post/policy steps. For decades, the RSOs have publicly stated they just publish the root zone as provided by the IANA. This promise was made based on the presumption that Jon Postel and then NTIA/ICANN would -only- make changes that were for the good of the DNS and the consumers of the DNS data. It may be perfectly reasonable to presume this will continue going forward, but it might be the right time/place to consider the potential of creating a formal structure between all the groups supporting various attributes of the functional, global DNS instead of using ICANN as the third party intermediary. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 6October2014Monday, at 7:21, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
As promised on our first IANA Stewardship CWG call today, attached and pasted below is a proposal to get us started in developing a work plan. Note that it is intentionally brief; we can fill in details later. I encourage free and open discussion of this between now and our meeting in L.A.
Chuck
IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps Proposal
For the CWG, I think a process something like the following would be a reasonable and effective way to go: 1. Describe all the steps in the current IANA processes for names. 2. Identify the places in those steps where the US government (through NTIA and/or any other government agency) participates. 3. Identify elements of the U.S. Government’s role that need to be replaced. 4. Brainstorm ideas about possible multi-stakeholder (not multi-lateral) process replacements for the U.S. Government’s role. 5. Develop consensus positions on a revised process. 6. Identify process points where accountability checks are needed. 7. Brainstorm accountability check ideas. 8. Develop consensus positions on accountability checks. 9. Brainstorm ideas on how to connect the assurance of general ICANN accountability before the IANA transition happens. 10. Develop consensus positions regarding 9. 11. Write final report and deliver it to the ICG.
Of course there should be lots of interaction between the CWG members and participants and the groups they represent as well as the general Internet population throughout the process. That should be continuous using the representative structure of the CWG but there can also be formal opportunities for input such as public comment periods.
Also, it may not be necessary for all of the steps to be performed serially; some could be done in parallel.
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”
<IANA Stewardship CWG Process Steps proposal 6 Oct 14.docx>_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship