Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
At 09/05/2016 11:31 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
-----Original Message-----
However, as far as I know, to date there has never been a discussion about it, and in my mind, there MUST be an authorization function in place for all significant changes in IANA operations prior to the transition.
Do you mean names IANA? It will help the discussion stay focused if you specify which IANA function you are talking about at all times.
I meant IANA, implying all IANA functions.
an authorization function in place for all significant changes in IANA operations prior to the transition.
This strikes me as a massive overstatement of what was intended. PTI will be in charge of names-IANA operations. It can change its operations at will as long as it performs the functions its customers want it to perform efficiently and effectively. The Standing committee will continually monitor and review its operations and it will be subject to IFRs.
The NTIA currently approves changes BEFORE they go into effect. DT-F was charged with deciding if such prior authorization was required and if so how to do it. The group decided that prior authorization WAS required for some classes of changes (and removed the need to authorization for others). The CWG approved that recommendation. Are you now suggesting that even if you believe that the RZERC is only for names, that we re-write the CWG report?
The "significant changes" this committee was supposed to be concerned with were those that went beyond names-IANA operations and involved a need to coordinate with a number of other players: the RZM, the root server operators, perhaps other IFOs.
I agree with Chuck that this committee was never intended to "approve" or "authorize" anything the way that NTIA "authorized" root zone file changes. It was intended to provide a platform for cooperation and coordination around major re-configurations of NAMES root zone process.
The committee does not authorize. That task was given to the ICANN Board. Unrelated to the Board's responsibility for names policy. It simply seemed a good senior people to anoint with the responsibility. I do not recall and objections to this in DT-F or the CWG. Alan
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca]
Do you mean names IANA? It will help the discussion stay focused if you specify which IANA function you are talking about at all times.
I meant IANA, implying all IANA functions.
The CWG represented only the names community, its proposal emerged out of the names community, and it only had authority to make proposals relevant to the names community. If you are talking about RZERC you are talking about names-related changes.
The committee does not authorize. That task was given to the ICANN Board.
Here we agree
Unrelated to the Board's responsibility for names policy.
Here we disagree. This is quite directly related to the board's responsibility for names policy
I do not recall and objections to this in DT-F or the CWG.
See my first comment above. It was assumed that the proposal applied only in the names domain, because DT-F was part of the names community proposal.
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 05:12:58PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
The CWG represented only the names community, its proposal emerged out of the names community, and it only had authority to make proposals relevant to the names community. If you are talking about RZERC you are talking about names-related changes.
I think Milton is quite correct. Bluntly, if _today_ the NTIA decided to tell ICANN not to do something that the IETF specified under ICANN's IANA agreement, I am quite sure that the IETF would use the same 6 month notice period it would use after the transition. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
At 10/05/2016 06:48 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 05:12:58PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
The CWG represented only the names community, its proposal
emerged out of the names community, and it only had authority to make proposals relevant to the names community. If you are talking about RZERC you are talking about names-related changes.
I think Milton is quite correct. Bluntly, if _today_ the NTIA decided to tell ICANN not to do something that the IETF specified under ICANN's IANA agreement, I am quite sure that the IETF would use the same 6 month notice period it would use after the transition.
I have no doubt about that, and I would support it. But that is not the question on the table as I understand it. It is purely about how that new function is carried out and not IF to carry it out. It might require minimal operational changes and this is a non-issue. Or it might require substantial software development or have major security issues that needed to be considered. My understanding of the overall issue is the following: - Currently the NTIA passes judgement on pretty much every decision that IANA makes related to the RZ and all of its operational procedures (including those related to the non-names communities). - The transition was required to specify how the NTIA would be replaced post-transition. The critical day-to-day issue was of course approval of changes to the RZ, but also operational changes and the systems they use. - DT-F was charged with considering this, and the outcome was that day-to-day decision would be handled internal to the IANA group and that substantive changes to the RZ Architecture would need to jump through extra hoops to ensure that all aspects were considered before making changes. Additionally, significant operational changes (with an eye to major systems and/or automation changes) would similarly need to have such external review. In my mind, presuming the other operational communities did not invent their own replacement of the NTIA authorization function, this group would address issues related to them as well. - The Group now called the RZERC (regardless of whether that is an appropriate name or not) was designated as the wise people to perform or oversee the review, and the ICANN Board was identified as the entity to give the "official" blessing. That blessing is effectively a rubber stamp unless there is reason to suspect the RZERC has not properly done its job. If this group and the ICANN Board are not responsible for overseeing operation changes related to the non-names registries, there are several options that I can think of. Perhaps there are more. 1. IANA (PTI in this incarnation) is left to its own devices and they can take whatever operational actions they want with no external approval. They could of course consult the RZERC if they chose, but are under no obligation to do so. Whether this is acceptable to the NTIA, I have no idea. 2. Each of the other communities could set up their own consultative group and authorizer (which could be the group itself). IANA would involve RZERC if the issue is names related, the new group(s) if the issue relates to other registries, or both (or all three) if applicable. 3. The other communities could use the RZERC (to not re-invent the wise-people-group) and it would forward its recommendation to the numbers/parameters-designated approver. I have no particular stake in which path is chosen, although I have a long enough history in systems design and operation that my preference is not option 1. We are talking about things that can break the Internet if not done properly, and I no matter how good the folks in IANA are, I think that major changes in process or systems should be vetted by a group that has a very strong cross-area perspective and can give such plans an unbiased and fresh review. 2 seems overkill based on the number of times this group is likely to be invoked and the likely overlap among the groups. Alan
Alan Greenberg writes:
We are talking about things that can break the Internet
And to things that have already made its way to various paths in the (ICANN, technical etc.) communites. To give the DNSSEC example again, that change has been discussed for a long time in various fora. jaap
At 11/05/2016 05:34 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
Alan Greenberg writes:
We are talking about things that can break the Internet
And to things that have already made its way to various paths in the (ICANN, technical etc.) communites. To give the DNSSEC example again, that change has been discussed for a long time in various fora.
jaap
Certainly. Some issues have a very long life. Others may arise. Alan
Alan We seem to be talking past each other. Andrew and I are just saying that the proposed RZERC is about the names root. If you look at the original charter for DT-F it was explicitly about the relationship between ICANN, IANA and the RZM - nothing more. RZERC can and will include people from protocols and numbers if you like, but its remit is major architectural changes in the names root. So the RZERC will ensure that the PTI, RZM and Root server operators don't do anything that "breaks the Internet" or messes up the other IFOs. If the IFOs for numbers and protocols do something that "breaks the Internet" then the numbers and protocols communities have all the authority they need to fire their IFO or, what is more likely, they have the oversight and credible threat to prevent that from happening in the first place. I don't see what else needs to be done.
-----Original Message----- At 10/05/2016 06:48 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 05:12:58PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
The CWG represented only the names community, its proposal
emerged out of the names community, and it only had authority to make proposals relevant to the names community. If you are talking about RZERC you are talking about names-related changes.
I think Milton is quite correct. Bluntly, if _today_ the NTIA decided to tell ICANN not to do something that the IETF specified under ICANN's IANA agreement, I am quite sure that the IETF would use the same 6 month notice period it would use after the transition.
I have no doubt about that, and I would support it.
But that is not the question on the table as I understand it. It is purely about how that new function is carried out and not IF to carry it out. It might require minimal operational changes and this is a non-issue. Or it might require substantial software development or have major security issues that needed to be considered.
My understanding of the overall issue is the following:
- Currently the NTIA passes judgement on pretty much every decision that IANA makes related to the RZ and all of its operational procedures (including those related to the non-names communities).
- The transition was required to specify how the NTIA would be replaced post- transition. The critical day-to-day issue was of course approval of changes to the RZ, but also operational changes and the systems they use.
- DT-F was charged with considering this, and the outcome was that day-to- day decision would be handled internal to the IANA group and that substantive changes to the RZ Architecture would need to jump through extra hoops to ensure that all aspects were considered before making changes. Additionally, significant operational changes (with an eye to major systems and/or automation changes) would similarly need to have such external review. In my mind, presuming the other operational communities did not invent their own replacement of the NTIA authorization function, this group would address issues related to them as well.
- The Group now called the RZERC (regardless of whether that is an appropriate name or not) was designated as the wise people to perform or oversee the review, and the ICANN Board was identified as the entity to give the "official" blessing. That blessing is effectively a rubber stamp unless there is reason to suspect the RZERC has not properly done its job.
If this group and the ICANN Board are not responsible for overseeing operation changes related to the non-names registries, there are several options that I can think of. Perhaps there are more.
1. IANA (PTI in this incarnation) is left to its own devices and they can take whatever operational actions they want with no external approval. They could of course consult the RZERC if they chose, but are under no obligation to do so. Whether this is acceptable to the NTIA, I have no idea.
2. Each of the other communities could set up their own consultative group and authorizer (which could be the group itself). IANA would involve RZERC if the issue is names related, the new group(s) if the issue relates to other registries, or both (or all three) if applicable.
3. The other communities could use the RZERC (to not re-invent the wise-people-group) and it would forward its recommendation to the numbers/parameters-designated approver.
I have no particular stake in which path is chosen, although I have a long enough history in systems design and operation that my preference is not option 1. We are talking about things that can break the Internet if not done properly, and I no matter how good the folks in IANA are, I think that major changes in process or systems should be vetted by a group that has a very strong cross-area perspective and can give such plans an unbiased and fresh review.
2 seems overkill based on the number of times this group is likely to be invoked and the likely overlap among the groups.
Alan
Hi, FWIW I agree with Milton and Andrew here. There are occasionally issues that arise around the administration of the root zone which impact the non-names communities as users of the DNS (such as the IAB’s responsibility for .arpa) or in which their input is useful to have for the names community (such as IETF input regarding the DNS standard). But otherwise the vast majority of the interactions of the other OCs with their IANA functions operator are unrelated to names, covered under existing agreements in which NTIA has no role today, and out of scope for the RZERC. Suzanne
On May 11, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Alan We seem to be talking past each other.
Andrew and I are just saying that the proposed RZERC is about the names root. If you look at the original charter for DT-F it was explicitly about the relationship between ICANN, IANA and the RZM - nothing more. RZERC can and will include people from protocols and numbers if you like, but its remit is major architectural changes in the names root. So the RZERC will ensure that the PTI, RZM and Root server operators don't do anything that "breaks the Internet" or messes up the other IFOs.
If the IFOs for numbers and protocols do something that "breaks the Internet" then the numbers and protocols communities have all the authority they need to fire their IFO or, what is more likely, they have the oversight and credible threat to prevent that from happening in the first place.
I don't see what else needs to be done.
-----Original Message----- At 10/05/2016 06:48 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 05:12:58PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
The CWG represented only the names community, its proposal
emerged out of the names community, and it only had authority to make proposals relevant to the names community. If you are talking about RZERC you are talking about names-related changes.
I think Milton is quite correct. Bluntly, if _today_ the NTIA decided to tell ICANN not to do something that the IETF specified under ICANN's IANA agreement, I am quite sure that the IETF would use the same 6 month notice period it would use after the transition.
I have no doubt about that, and I would support it.
But that is not the question on the table as I understand it. It is purely about how that new function is carried out and not IF to carry it out. It might require minimal operational changes and this is a non-issue. Or it might require substantial software development or have major security issues that needed to be considered.
My understanding of the overall issue is the following:
- Currently the NTIA passes judgement on pretty much every decision that IANA makes related to the RZ and all of its operational procedures (including those related to the non-names communities).
- The transition was required to specify how the NTIA would be replaced post- transition. The critical day-to-day issue was of course approval of changes to the RZ, but also operational changes and the systems they use.
- DT-F was charged with considering this, and the outcome was that day-to- day decision would be handled internal to the IANA group and that substantive changes to the RZ Architecture would need to jump through extra hoops to ensure that all aspects were considered before making changes. Additionally, significant operational changes (with an eye to major systems and/or automation changes) would similarly need to have such external review. In my mind, presuming the other operational communities did not invent their own replacement of the NTIA authorization function, this group would address issues related to them as well.
- The Group now called the RZERC (regardless of whether that is an appropriate name or not) was designated as the wise people to perform or oversee the review, and the ICANN Board was identified as the entity to give the "official" blessing. That blessing is effectively a rubber stamp unless there is reason to suspect the RZERC has not properly done its job.
If this group and the ICANN Board are not responsible for overseeing operation changes related to the non-names registries, there are several options that I can think of. Perhaps there are more.
1. IANA (PTI in this incarnation) is left to its own devices and they can take whatever operational actions they want with no external approval. They could of course consult the RZERC if they chose, but are under no obligation to do so. Whether this is acceptable to the NTIA, I have no idea.
2. Each of the other communities could set up their own consultative group and authorizer (which could be the group itself). IANA would involve RZERC if the issue is names related, the new group(s) if the issue relates to other registries, or both (or all three) if applicable.
3. The other communities could use the RZERC (to not re-invent the wise-people-group) and it would forward its recommendation to the numbers/parameters-designated approver.
I have no particular stake in which path is chosen, although I have a long enough history in systems design and operation that my preference is not option 1. We are talking about things that can break the Internet if not done properly, and I no matter how good the folks in IANA are, I think that major changes in process or systems should be vetted by a group that has a very strong cross-area perspective and can give such plans an unbiased and fresh review.
2 seems overkill based on the number of times this group is likely to be invoked and the likely overlap among the groups.
Alan
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I support Andrew and Suzanne and Milton. That was my understanding of the scope of the RZERC role during the CWG. -James On 11/05/2016, 15:07, "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Suzanne Woolf" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
FWIW I agree with Milton and Andrew here.
There are occasionally issues that arise around the administration of the root zone which impact the non-names communities as users of the DNS (such as the IAB’s responsibility for .arpa) or in which their input is useful to have for the names community (such as IETF input regarding the DNS standard).
But otherwise the vast majority of the interactions of the other OCs with their IANA functions operator are unrelated to names, covered under existing agreements in which NTIA has no role today, and out of scope for the RZERC.
Suzanne
On May 11, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Alan We seem to be talking past each other.
Andrew and I are just saying that the proposed RZERC is about the names root. If you look at the original charter for DT-F it was explicitly about the relationship between ICANN, IANA and the RZM - nothing more. RZERC can and will include people from protocols and numbers if you like, but its remit is major architectural changes in the names root. So the RZERC will ensure that the PTI, RZM and Root server operators don't do anything that "breaks the Internet" or messes up the other IFOs.
If the IFOs for numbers and protocols do something that "breaks the Internet" then the numbers and protocols communities have all the authority they need to fire their IFO or, what is more likely, they have the oversight and credible threat to prevent that from happening in the first place.
I don't see what else needs to be done.
-----Original Message----- At 10/05/2016 06:48 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 05:12:58PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
The CWG represented only the names community, its proposal
emerged out of the names community, and it only had authority to make proposals relevant to the names community. If you are talking about RZERC you are talking about names-related changes.
I think Milton is quite correct. Bluntly, if _today_ the NTIA decided to tell ICANN not to do something that the IETF specified under ICANN's IANA agreement, I am quite sure that the IETF would use the same 6 month notice period it would use after the transition.
I have no doubt about that, and I would support it.
But that is not the question on the table as I understand it. It is purely about how that new function is carried out and not IF to carry it out. It might require minimal operational changes and this is a non-issue. Or it might require substantial software development or have major security issues that needed to be considered.
My understanding of the overall issue is the following:
- Currently the NTIA passes judgement on pretty much every decision that IANA makes related to the RZ and all of its operational procedures (including those related to the non-names communities).
- The transition was required to specify how the NTIA would be replaced post- transition. The critical day-to-day issue was of course approval of changes to the RZ, but also operational changes and the systems they use.
- DT-F was charged with considering this, and the outcome was that day-to- day decision would be handled internal to the IANA group and that substantive changes to the RZ Architecture would need to jump through extra hoops to ensure that all aspects were considered before making changes. Additionally, significant operational changes (with an eye to major systems and/or automation changes) would similarly need to have such external review. In my mind, presuming the other operational communities did not invent their own replacement of the NTIA authorization function, this group would address issues related to them as well.
- The Group now called the RZERC (regardless of whether that is an appropriate name or not) was designated as the wise people to perform or oversee the review, and the ICANN Board was identified as the entity to give the "official" blessing. That blessing is effectively a rubber stamp unless there is reason to suspect the RZERC has not properly done its job.
If this group and the ICANN Board are not responsible for overseeing operation changes related to the non-names registries, there are several options that I can think of. Perhaps there are more.
1. IANA (PTI in this incarnation) is left to its own devices and they can take whatever operational actions they want with no external approval. They could of course consult the RZERC if they chose, but are under no obligation to do so. Whether this is acceptable to the NTIA, I have no idea.
2. Each of the other communities could set up their own consultative group and authorizer (which could be the group itself). IANA would involve RZERC if the issue is names related, the new group(s) if the issue relates to other registries, or both (or all three) if applicable.
3. The other communities could use the RZERC (to not re-invent the wise-people-group) and it would forward its recommendation to the numbers/parameters-designated approver.
I have no particular stake in which path is chosen, although I have a long enough history in systems design and operation that my preference is not option 1. We are talking about things that can break the Internet if not done properly, and I no matter how good the folks in IANA are, I think that major changes in process or systems should be vetted by a group that has a very strong cross-area perspective and can give such plans an unbiased and fresh review.
2 seems overkill based on the number of times this group is likely to be invoked and the likely overlap among the groups.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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
As I have said a number of time. I recounted MY understanding. If the other operational communities are both happy to have no prior oversight or operational changes (as Milton implies could happen), or as Andrew says, they have already addressed that prior authorization in their proposals (and I have missed that), then there is nothing to discuss. Alan At 11/05/2016 10:46 AM, James Gannon wrote:
I support Andrew and Suzanne and Milton. That was my understanding of the scope of the RZERC role during the CWG.
-James
On 11/05/2016, 15:07, "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Suzanne Woolf" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of suzworldwide@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
FWIW I agree with Milton and Andrew here.
There are occasionally issues that arise around the administration of the root zone which impact the non-names communities as users of the DNS (such as the IABâs responsibility for .arpa) or in which their input is useful to have for the names community (such as IETF input regarding the DNS standard).
But otherwise the vast majority of the interactions of the other OCs with their IANA functions operator are unrelated to names, covered under existing agreements in which NTIA has no role today, and out of scope for the RZERC.
Suzanne
On May 11, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Alan We seem to be talking past each other.
Andrew and I are just saying that the proposed RZERC is about the names root. If you look at the original charter for DT-F it was explicitly about the relationship between ICANN, IANA and the RZM - nothing more. RZERC can and will include people from protocols and numbers if you like, but its remit is major architectural changes in the names root. So the RZERC will ensure that the PTI, RZM and Root server operators don't do anything that "breaks the Internet" or messes up the other IFOs.
If the IFOs for numbers and protocols do something that "breaks the Internet" then the numbers and protocols communities have all the authority they need to fire their IFO or, what is more likely, they have the oversight and credible threat to prevent that from happening in the first place.
I don't see what else needs to be done.
-----Original Message----- At 10/05/2016 06:48 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 05:12:58PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
The CWG represented only the names community, its proposal
emerged out of the names community, and it only had authority to make proposals relevant to the names community. If you are talking about RZERC you are talking about names-related changes.
I think Milton is quite correct. Bluntly, if _today_ the NTIA decided to tell ICANN not to do something that the IETF specified under ICANN's IANA agreement, I am quite sure that the IETF would use the same 6 month notice period it would use after the transition.
I have no doubt about that, and I would support it.
But that is not the question on the table as I understand it. It is purely about how that new function is carried out and not IF to carry it out. It might require minimal operational changes and this is a non-issue. Or it might require substantial software development or have major security issues that needed to be considered.
My understanding of the overall issue is the following:
- Currently the NTIA passes judgement on pretty much every decision that IANA makes related to the RZ and all of its operational procedures (including those related to the non-names communities).
- The transition was required to specify how the NTIA would be replaced post- transition. The critical day-to-day issue was of course approval of changes to the RZ, but also operational changes and the systems they use.
- DT-F was charged with considering this, and the outcome was that day-to- day decision would be handled internal to the IANA group and that substantive changes to the RZ Architecture would need to jump through extra hoops to ensure that all aspects were considered before making changes. Additionally, significant operational changes (with an eye to major systems and/or automation changes) would similarly need to have such external review. In my mind, presuming the other operational communities did not invent their own replacement of the NTIA authorization function, this group would address issues related to them as well.
- The Group now called the RZERC (regardless of whether that is an appropriate name or not) was designated as the wise people to perform or oversee the review, and the ICANN Board was identified as the entity to give the "official" blessing. That blessing is effectively a rubber stamp unless there is reason to suspect the RZERC has not properly done its job.
If this group and the ICANN Board are not responsible for overseeing operation changes related to the non-names registries, there are several options that I can think of. Perhaps there are more.
1. IANA (PTI in this incarnation) is left to its own devices and they can take whatever operational actions they want with no external approval. They could of course consult the RZERC if they chose, but are under no obligation to do so. Whether this is acceptable to the NTIA, I have no idea.
2. Each of the other communities could set up their own consultative group and authorizer (which could be the group itself). IANA would involve RZERC if the issue is names related, the new group(s) if the issue relates to other registries, or both (or all three) if applicable.
3. The other communities could use the RZERC (to not re-invent the wise-people-group) and it would forward its recommendation to the numbers/parameters-designated approver.
I have no particular stake in which path is chosen, although I have a long enough history in systems design and operation that my preference is not option 1. We are talking about things that can break the Internet if not done properly, and I no matter how good the folks in IANA are, I think that major changes in process or systems should be vetted by a group that has a very strong cross-area perspective and can give such plans an unbiased and fresh review.
2 seems overkill based on the number of times this group is likely to be invoked and the likely overlap among the groups.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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
CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 08:39:59PM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
- The transition was required to specify how the NTIA would be replaced post-transition. The critical day-to-day issue was of course approval of changes to the RZ, but also operational changes and the systems they use.
review. In my mind, presuming the other operational communities did not invent their own replacement of the NTIA authorization function, this group would address issues related to them as well.
As Milton said, the CWG proposal related to names, not everything IANA is doing. I don't know, and neither does anyone else know, what was in your mind; but I don't believe any other OC was expecting the CWG to come up with new processes for them to follow or be involved in. The very idea that the CWG could or would invent some process to govern the operations of protocol parameters registries flies in the face of the way we developed the ICG proposal. It's not on. Speaking for myself, I think there was not, is not, and will not be in future any utility in a rubber stamp on changes to the operations of IANA protocol parameter registries once the IETF has said what it wants. I feel exactly the same way about number resources registries. The reason I, at least, thought this was important for names is that there seem to be a lot of names policy discussions where people expert in the technical details are not closely engaged in the names community. This was a way to ensure that there was a channel to encourage such engagement. Moreover, the CWG decided to reproduce much more of the existing machinery than the other communities did, because those other communities had a longer history of stewardship and accountability mechanisms, because they'd spent the last 15 years working them out. The names community had to work quickly and so for pragmatic reasons tried to cleave to existing mechanisms.
2. Each of the other communities could set up their own consultative group and authorizer (which could be the group itself).
This is what they've _already done_ in the ICG proposal. There is no special thing that has to happen here. You appear to be attempting to invent a well-needed problem for a solution you have. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
That was my understanding as well Alan. Thanks. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 12:15 PM To: Mueller, Milton L; Gomes, Chuck; Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review At 09/05/2016 11:31 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
-----Original Message-----
However, as far as I know, to date there has never been a discussion about it, and in my mind, there MUST be an authorization function in place for all significant changes in IANA operations prior to the transition.
Do you mean names IANA? It will help the discussion stay focused if you specify which IANA function you are talking about at all times.
I meant IANA, implying all IANA functions.
an authorization function in place for all significant changes in IANA operations prior to the transition.
This strikes me as a massive overstatement of what was intended. PTI will be in charge of names-IANA operations. It can change its operations at will as long as it performs the functions its customers want it to perform efficiently and effectively. The Standing committee will continually monitor and review its operations and it will be subject to IFRs.
The NTIA currently approves changes BEFORE they go into effect. DT-F was charged with deciding if such prior authorization was required and if so how to do it. The group decided that prior authorization WAS required for some classes of changes (and removed the need to authorization for others). The CWG approved that recommendation. Are you now suggesting that even if you believe that the RZERC is only for names, that we re-write the CWG report?
The "significant changes" this committee was supposed to be concerned with were those that went beyond names-IANA operations and involved a need to coordinate with a number of other players: the RZM, the root server operators, perhaps other IFOs.
I agree with Chuck that this committee was never intended to "approve" or "authorize" anything the way that NTIA "authorized" root zone file changes. It was intended to provide a platform for cooperation and coordination around major re-configurations of NAMES root zone process.
The committee does not authorize. That task was given to the ICANN Board. Unrelated to the Board's responsibility for names policy. It simply seemed a good senior people to anoint with the responsibility. I do not recall and objections to this in DT-F or the CWG. Alan
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrew Sullivan -
Gomes, Chuck -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
James Gannon -
Mueller, Milton L -
Suzanne Woolf