Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
There is no doubt that the requirement to amend or replace the RZMaintainer Cooperative Agreement to ensure that post-transition, Verisign will be oblidged to implement changes passed on by IANA. But the Verisign/ICANN proposal was not a vehicle for this . That proposal is solely about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transistion, and not introduce any risk, and specifically not require any coding changes into the process (at that point in time). The Q&A that accompanied the proposal did say that there would need to be changes to the Cooperative Agreement but did not go into detail. The requirement is not "fudged" in the proposal, because the proposal is addressing a completely different issue. Admittedly, the proposal did lack clarity on what it was trying to achieve. Alan At 30/09/2015 01:55 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
As I have already pointed out to Alan and Chuck on the DT-F list, I think the ICANN-Verisign proposal for RZM does not meet one essential requirement of the DTF. We called for an agreement between the RZMaintainer and the IANA Functions Operator to ensure that the IFO's changes would be implemented. As far as I can tell, that requirement is fudged in the ICANN-Verisign proposal. We have no idea what kind of an agreement, if any, would exist between Verisign and ICANN after NTIA pulls away, nor do we have a more generic notion of how ICANN, IFO and RZM relate.
--MM
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:00 PM To: Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
Regarding the first item on the Verisign/ICANN proposal:
To quote from an analysis I did for the ALAC Transition Support group:
The document is an implementation of the implied recommendation of Design Team F that nothing be changed in the RZMS code prior to or during transition. It follows the golden rule that you should make as few changes at the same time as possible.
In my mind, this proposal carried that rule to a ridiculous extreme.
The proposal calls for an lot of work and expense to avoid making a relatively simple coding change that could be verified seventeen ways to Sunday. But yes, it does meeting the CWG requirements.
Alan
At 29/09/2015 09:57 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared the attached table which provides a draft response for a number of the ICG questions which is intended to serve as a starting point for CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and share your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday.
Thanks,
Marika
_______________________________________________ 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
Alan, I think you made my point much better than I did: ". . the Verisign/ICANN proposal was not a vehicle for this (amending or replacing the RZMaintainer Cooperative Agreement). That proposal is solely about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transistion, and not introduce any risk . . . the proposal is addressing a completely different issue . . . " Part of our problem is the way the ICG question is worded: " the ICG asks the CWG-Stewardship to inform us whether or not the Verisign/ICANN proposal (available athttp://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_prop...) for revising Root Zone Management arrangements after the elimination of NTIA's authorization role meets the CWG's requirements as expressed in paragraph 1150 (sections 2 and 3) and multiple Annexes of Part 1 of the transition proposal. " Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:49 PM To: Mueller, Milton L; Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions There is no doubt that the requirement to amend or replace the RZMaintainer Cooperative Agreement to ensure that post-transition, Verisign will be oblidged to implement changes passed on by IANA. But the Verisign/ICANN proposal was not a vehicle for this . That proposal is solely about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transistion, and not introduce any risk, and specifically not require any coding changes into the process (at that point in time). The Q&A that accompanied the proposal did say that there would need to be changes to the Cooperative Agreement but did not go into detail. The requirement is not "fudged" in the proposal, because the proposal is addressing a completely different issue. Admittedly, the proposal did lack clarity on what it was trying to achieve. Alan At 30/09/2015 01:55 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
As I have already pointed out to Alan and Chuck on the DT-F list, I think the ICANN-Verisign proposal for RZM does not meet one essential requirement of the DTF. We called for an agreement between the RZMaintainer and the IANA Functions Operator to ensure that the IFO's changes would be implemented. As far as I can tell, that requirement is fudged in the ICANN-Verisign proposal. We have no idea what kind of an agreement, if any, would exist between Verisign and ICANN after NTIA pulls away, nor do we have a more generic notion of how ICANN, IFO and RZM relate.
--MM
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:00 PM To: Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
Regarding the first item on the Verisign/ICANN proposal:
To quote from an analysis I did for the ALAC Transition Support group:
The document is an implementation of the implied recommendation of Design Team F that nothing be changed in the RZMS code prior to or during transition. It follows the golden rule that you should make as few changes at the same time as possible.
In my mind, this proposal carried that rule to a ridiculous extreme.
The proposal calls for an lot of work and expense to avoid making a relatively simple coding change that could be verified seventeen ways to Sunday. But yes, it does meeting the CWG requirements.
Alan
At 29/09/2015 09:57 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared the attached table which provides a draft response for a number of the ICG questions which is intended to serve as a starting point for CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and share your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday.
Thanks,
Marika
_______________________________________________ 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
I think in effect Alan and Chuck have answered the ICG question. They are saying that the ICANN-Verisign proposal does NOT meet the requirements because it was designed to address a much more limited issue ("how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transition") More comments below:
-----Original Message----- CG: I think you made my point much better than I did: ". . the Verisign/ICANN proposal was not a vehicle for this (amending or replacing the RZMaintainer Cooperative Agreement). That proposal is solely about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transistion, and not introduce any risk . . . the proposal is addressing a completely different issue . . . "
The proposal may be addressing a different issue, but I think both of you may be missing the point. Unless we know whether there is a contractual or other kind of "agreement" between PTI and Verisign, we do not know what arrangements will ensure that PTI's root zone changes are implemented. If the ICANN-Verisign proposal does not address that issue, it does not meet the requirements of the CWG transition proposal. And we cannot simply say, "that is for NTIA to solve." The future relationship between PTI and Verisign is not something that can be addressed by modifying the NTIA-Verisign cooperative agreement (unless of course you want NTIA to continue in its oversight role in some way). All NTIA can do is get itself out of the way by ending its authorization role. But we need to know what binds Verisign to implement PTI's root zone modifications, and whether ICANN is the contracting party, whether ICANN can end the contract and take over the function itself, etc. Those questions are, I guess we agree, not answered in the proposal. So I would recommend answering in that way. --MM
Alan Greenberg writes:
There is no doubt that the requirement to amend or replace the RZMaintainer Cooperative Agreement to ensure that post-transition, Verisign will be oblidged to implement changes passed on by IANA. But the Verisign/ICANN proposal was not a vehicle for this . That proposal is solely about how to logistically eliminate NTIA approvals at the moment of transistion, and not introduce any risk, and specifically not require any coding changes into the process (at that point in time).
That was my reading of the proposal as well. A proposal to ensure that the results are the same when the NTIA drops out of the protocol and make sure that the communication keeps flowing. jaap
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Gomes, Chuck -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
Mueller, Milton L