And I for one am deeply suspicious of including an authorisation process.  It can only be on whether the process has been followed and the proposed changes are accurate:  wouldn’t it be best to confirm with the customer?

My concern is that the authorisation process as is is entirely administrative.  I’d be unhappy with something that kept in place a role that may become a gatekeeper and could slow down a process.  I’d also note that there could be jurisdiction questions associated with this role.

Cheers

Martin

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: 11 February 2015 10:29
To: Donna Austin
Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] verification function

I believe "verification" was used as a synonym for what we have generally called "authorization" in our discussion of NTIA's role.

Greg

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> wrote:

Avri

The RYSG comments suggested a secondary verification step within the IANA Dept. Or an independent third party, which could be a professional audit company.

Any verification would need to meet the same service levels attained now, or better.

Donna

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:14 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

Sitting in the IANA Department - Who, What, Why? session.

The question of who would perform the verification after NTIA no longer does it.

Unless we assume that the function is not required, is this something that could just be farmed out to a professional audit company?

avri

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship