For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview
Dear All, As discussed during yesterday's meeting, please find attached version 2.1 of the draft transition proposal which includes: * References in section 3 to Design Teams * New section covering .INT * Placeholders in section 3 where staff is developing text for CWG review * Some minor other edits Please share any comments / edits you may have with the list. For your convenience, you will also find the latest version of the design teams status overview which includes some of the improvements discussed during yesterday's meeting. Best regards, Marika
Thanks Marika. To hopefully facilitate increased progress on the DTs, I took a first crack at completing the template for Design Team M. I strongly welcome edits, additions, deletions, etc. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:08 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview Dear All, As discussed during yesterday's meeting, please find attached version 2.1 of the draft transition proposal which includes: * References in section 3 to Design Teams * New section covering .INT * Placeholders in section 3 where staff is developing text for CWG review * Some minor other edits Please share any comments / edits you may have with the list. For your convenience, you will also find the latest version of the design teams status overview which includes some of the improvements discussed during yesterday's meeting. Best regards, Marika
Thanks, Chuck. All, please find attached an updated version of the DT Status Overview that includes the template for DT M as well as membership info for DT B and C. Best regards, Marika From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday 11 March 2015 20:17 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview Thanks Marika. To hopefully facilitate increased progress on the DTs, I took a first crack at completing the template for Design Team M. I strongly welcome edits, additions, deletions, etc. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:08 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview Dear All, As discussed during yesterday's meeting, please find attached version 2.1 of the draft transition proposal which includes: * References in section 3 to Design Teams * New section covering .INT * Placeholders in section 3 where staff is developing text for CWG review * Some minor other edits Please share any comments / edits you may have with the list. For your convenience, you will also find the latest version of the design teams status overview which includes some of the improvements discussed during yesterday's meeting. Best regards, Marika
This is very good Donna. I made a few very minor edits that are highlighted in the attached file. Chuck From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 5:49 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview Thanks, Chuck. All, please find attached an updated version of the DT Status Overview that includes the template for DT M as well as membership info for DT B and C. Best regards, Marika From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday 11 March 2015 20:17 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview Thanks Marika. To hopefully facilitate increased progress on the DTs, I took a first crack at completing the template for Design Team M. I strongly welcome edits, additions, deletions, etc. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:08 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview Dear All, As discussed during yesterday's meeting, please find attached version 2.1 of the draft transition proposal which includes: * References in section 3 to Design Teams * New section covering .INT * Placeholders in section 3 where staff is developing text for CWG review * Some minor other edits Please share any comments / edits you may have with the list. For your convenience, you will also find the latest version of the design teams status overview which includes some of the improvements discussed during yesterday's meeting. Best regards, Marika
Please ignore this. I sent it to the wrong list. Sorry about that. Chuck From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 6:48 PM To: 'Marika Konings'; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview This is very good Donna. I made a few very minor edits that are highlighted in the attached file. Chuck From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 5:49 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview Thanks, Chuck. All, please find attached an updated version of the DT Status Overview that includes the template for DT M as well as membership info for DT B and C. Best regards, Marika From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday 11 March 2015 20:17 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview Thanks Marika. To hopefully facilitate increased progress on the DTs, I took a first crack at completing the template for Design Team M. I strongly welcome edits, additions, deletions, etc. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:08 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview Dear All, As discussed during yesterday's meeting, please find attached version 2.1 of the draft transition proposal which includes: * References in section 3 to Design Teams * New section covering .INT * Placeholders in section 3 where staff is developing text for CWG review * Some minor other edits Please share any comments / edits you may have with the list. For your convenience, you will also find the latest version of the design teams status overview which includes some of the improvements discussed during yesterday's meeting. Best regards, Marika
Hi, By and large I think this is a good description. And a group I would be interested in participating in. One issue I think needs to be added to the detailed description is: What role, if any, do the other SOAC have in escalating IANA rname services issues? Thanks avri On 11-Mar-15 15:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Thanks Marika.
To hopefully facilitate increased progress on the DTs, I took a first crack at completing the template for Design Team M. I strongly welcome edits, additions, deletions, etc.
Chuck
*From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:08 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview
Dear All,
As discussed during yesterday’s meeting, please find attached version 2.1 of the draft transition proposal which includes:
* References in section 3 to Design Teams * New section covering .INT * Placeholders in section 3 where staff is developing text for CWG review * Some minor other edits
Please share any comments / edits you may have with the list.
For your convenience, you will also find the latest version of the design teams status overview which includes some of the improvements discussed during yesterday’s meeting.
Best regards,
Marika
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
I will add that Avri. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:31 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview Hi, By and large I think this is a good description. And a group I would be interested in participating in. One issue I think needs to be added to the detailed description is: What role, if any, do the other SOAC have in escalating IANA rname services issues? Thanks avri On 11-Mar-15 15:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Thanks Marika. To hopefully facilitate increased progress on the DTs, I took a first crack at completing the template for Design Team M. I strongly welcome edits, additions, deletions, etc. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:08 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview Dear All, As discussed during yesterday's meeting, please find attached version 2.1 of the draft transition proposal which includes: * References in section 3 to Design Teams * New section covering .INT * Placeholders in section 3 where staff is developing text for CWG review * Some minor other edits Please share any comments / edits you may have with the list. For your convenience, you will also find the latest version of the design teams status overview which includes some of the improvements discussed during yesterday's meeting. Best regards, Marika _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/>
It may be just me or it may because I was mostly out of the loop for a week and a half, but in Section III.A.1 of plan the placement of some of the DT output seems strange to me. For example: * It makes perfect sense to me why DT-L (IANA Function Separation Mechanism) would be in Section III.A.1.1 (Contract extension, cancellation and renewal) but I don't understand why DT-M (Escalation Procedures) would be in the same section; Wouldn't DT-M be better placed in 'III.A.1.3 Administration/oversight of SOW' or 'III.A.1.4 Statement of Work (SOW)'? * Also, why would DT-B (Assessment of the Level of Consensus within the ccTLD Community in Regard to a Possible Appeal Mechanism for ccTLD Delegations and Redelegations) be in 'Section III.A.1.1 (Contract extension, cancellation and renewal)'; in my opinion it would also be better placed in 'III.A.1.3 Administration/oversight of SOW' or 'III.A.1.4 Statement of Work (SOW)'. Am I missing something here? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:08 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview Dear All, As discussed during yesterday's meeting, please find attached version 2.1 of the draft transition proposal which includes: * References in section 3 to Design Teams * New section covering .INT * Placeholders in section 3 where staff is developing text for CWG review * Some minor other edits Please share any comments / edits you may have with the list. For your convenience, you will also find the latest version of the design teams status overview which includes some of the improvements discussed during yesterday's meeting. Best regards, Marika
Hi Chuck, Thanks for your feedback. For now the focus has been on identifying the issues that need to be dealt with - I don't think the structure of section III is set in stone, so if the view is that the issues identified and being worked on by DT fit better under a different heading, I don't think that should be an issue. Just my two cents. Best regards, Marika From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> Date: Wednesday 11 March 2015 20:58 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview It may be just me or it may because I was mostly out of the loop for a week and a half, but in Section III.A.1 of plan the placement of some of the DT output seems strange to me. For example: · It makes perfect sense to me why DT-L (IANA Function Separation Mechanism) would be in Section III.A.1.1 (Contract extension, cancellation and renewal) but I don't understand why DT-M (Escalation Procedures) would be in the same section; Wouldn't DT-M be better placed in 'III.A.1.3 Administration/oversight of SOW' or 'III.A.1.4 Statement of Work (SOW)'? · Also, why would DT-B (Assessment of the Level of Consensus within the ccTLD Community in Regard to a Possible Appeal Mechanism for ccTLD Delegations and Redelegations) be in 'Section III.A.1.1 (Contract extension, cancellation and renewal)'; in my opinion it would also be better placed in 'III.A.1.3 Administration/oversight of SOW' or 'III.A.1.4 Statement of Work (SOW)'. Am I missing something here? Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:08 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - Draft Transition Plan V2.1 and DT Status Overview Dear All, As discussed during yesterday's meeting, please find attached version 2.1 of the draft transition proposal which includes: * References in section 3 to Design Teams * New section covering .INT * Placeholders in section 3 where staff is developing text for CWG review * Some minor other edits Please share any comments / edits you may have with the list. For your convenience, you will also find the latest version of the design teams status overview which includes some of the improvements discussed during yesterday's meeting. Best regards, Marika
Dear colleagues, On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 07:07:41PM +0000, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
As discussed during yesterday's meeting, please find attached version 2.1 of the draft transition proposal which includes:
I've read this document. Here are some comments. In I.A, the customers of the root zone change management function include ccTLD and gTLD registries, and the INT registry. According to the classification on http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db, however, INT is just a species of "sponsored" TLD. (As you know from my previous postings, I disagree with this interpretation, but let's leave it for the moment). Instead of "INT", then, should this be "sponsors of sponsored TLDs"? In any case, I think the IAB needs to be added as another relevant customer, _for the root zone_, because of arpa. That is, the IANAPLAN submission includes the arpa zone operation under the protocol parameters registry, but I.A (and actually, I.B too) are talking about the registry of the _root_ zone, in which the various TLDs are registrants. So the delegated authorities of every TLD are the registrants (all the customers), and that includes the IAB for arpa. (I hope this makes sense. It's a little hard to understand because the arpa zone is also served by the root zone, but you can see the difference if you query for an SOA record for arpa. Since there is one, there are two zones.) This should be extended to I.B (you can check by doing whois -h whois.iana.org arpa) but, rather to my embarrassment, I just don't know whether anyone has thought about I.G or I.H. I'll ask. In I.F, why are the customers various registries? The root zone KSK is the trust anchor for the entire DNSSEC system. The customers are "all validating systems on the Internet". I'm also not sure why IP addresses are relevant to this. Section II really depends on the reader knowing and understanding the difference between a gTLD and a ccTLD, and also on understanding the difference between a ccTLD and an IDN ccTLD. I suggest that, before II.A, that be inserted. Here is some suggested text, but it can probably use some sprucing up: The names in the root zone are by and large top-level domains. With very few exceptions, they fall into two borad categories: generic TLDs (gTLDs) and country-code TLDs (ccTLDs). The majority of ccTLDs are two-letter TLDs; they are created in conformance with the ISO 3166 two-letter country code list. There is also a growing number of ccTLDs that are associated with countries, but that write the name of the country as an Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (RFC 5890) U-label/A-label pair. With the exceptions of INT and ARPA, the remaining TLDs are all treated as gTLDs for the purposes of administration. This distinction is necessary to keep in mind in what follows. In II.A.1, there is a claim that RFC 1591 "was not meant to be a policy document". I'm not sure I agree with that statement. When nerds like me talk about "policy", we mean it in the narrow sense of "here are the rules for what happens right now." There are DNS validation policies, for instance, that determine whether you validate DNSSEC responses or not, and what you do in case of failure. Just about every top-level registry these days has a registration policy that says, "If you don't have two different name servers, we won't publish your name in the DNS." And so on. These are technical policies. And we in the technical community cheerfully use the word "policy" that way, to distinguish those rules (which are variable from operator to operator) from protocol rules (which have to be the same everywhere or things don't work). RFC 1591 (or anyway, the relevant parts) read exactly like that kind of "policy" to me. What it probably was not intended to be is a public policy or social policy or something like that. It certainly did not intend to be holy writ. Which brings me to the other perhaps touchy issue in this section. It's not true that there was no process for updating RFC 1591. The RFC series since practically forever -- certainly since the days of 1591 -- had a way to update _anything_, and that was to issue a new RFC that said, "This one updates that one." I think this is not a problem, because I think the IETF and IAB pretty clearly decided many years ago that this entire issue was sent somewhere else. But it could have been -- and in principle, still could be -- updated if someone desperately wanted to do that and could get consensus. It's sort of too bad, really, that nobody went back and obsoleted RFC 1591, or at least published an update saying where the policy documents had moved to, because that would make this all much clearer. In II.B.2 and II.B.3, there's this: The NTIA is currently responsible for providing this oversight. There is no description regarding how the individuals who perform these functions are selected, removed or replaced. Should that say "no description in the agreement" or something like that? Surely there is, somewhere, such a description, because the NTIA employees are all civil servants, so the relevant US civil service regulations do contain such a description. In the same sections, the text answers the question of jurisdiction, but not the "legal basis" part. It should probably just say. I guess saying, "There's an agreement between ICANN and USG," would be enough, yes? I hope these comments are helpful. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
participants (4)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Marika Konings