At 08/05/2016 02:15 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

On Sun, May 08, 2016 at
01:32:57PM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> Although it is responsible for overseeing the architecture of the
Root Zone,
> it is also responsible for significant operational changes in
regard to all
> IANA functions

I'm not sure I agree.  The justification for this committee is at
¶154
ff in the CWG proposal
(
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53779816),
but the text is not perfectly clear.  It recommends that "a
replacement of this approval function be put in place for significant
architectural and operational changes."  The antecedent of
"this" is
apparently in the prior paragraph (153), which includes changes to the
root zone "environment" (with DNSSEC as an example) "as
well as many
classes of changes to IANA Functions Operator processes (including
what may be published)".  That's the only example given,
however, and
it's hard to know what to make of this claim.

I well recall the discussion about how DNSSEC was implemented.  I'm
having a hard time imagining the kind of operational change where, if
an operational community wanted it, the Board would be in a position
to say no.  For the OC in question would surely terminate and take
their IANA function elsewhere in that case, no?

Best regards,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at
anvilwalrusden.com

I don't think it is issue of the Board saying no. The ICANN Board was put in that position because it was felt (within DT-F) that SOME entity had to have the Go/NoGo stamp, and the ICANN Board was as good or better than any other proposals at the time. The real issue is that whatever the proposal is, it has been vetted by people/groups that are the experts on the issue.

Currently NTIA passes judgement on pretty much EVERYTHING that IANA does, including details of what is on a report. The new authorization function (committee + Board) was to replace that, but only for the more substantive issues.

Alan