Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
As I said in an earlier message, if the other communities want to set up a similar consultative group, it will make things more complex for the IANA folks, but sure, that could work. 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. Alan At 09/05/2016 10:05 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I wonder if we should let the numbers and protocol communities decide how they would like this to happen.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 9:53 PM To: Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
-----Original Message----- Given that the whole thing just advises the Board and can be reconstituted later if need be, I'm not too exercised about including a reasonably wide group of people. Also, of course, we should hope that the sorts of innovations that might involve this group would be relatively rare. But, for instance, there's current work afoot to rename all the root servers to give a little more room in the DNS priming query; and I'd like to believe that we all think maximal co- operation in making those sorts of changes is the sort of thing we can count on.
Yes, absolutely, any major change in the names RZ operations needs to have input from numbers and the IETF. I have no problem with broader inclusion within the committee. I do, however, want to see the remit of this committee clearly restricted to the names. It seemed to me from the initial reading that there was still confusion about this (and these concerns were amply borne out).
--MM _______________________________________________ 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, Do you see the RZERC as having an authorization role? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 10:38 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review As I said in an earlier message, if the other communities want to set up a similar consultative group, it will make things more complex for the IANA folks, but sure, that could work. 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. Alan At 09/05/2016 10:05 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I wonder if we should let the numbers and protocol communities decide how they would like this to happen.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 9:53 PM To: Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
-----Original Message----- Given that the whole thing just advises the Board and can be reconstituted later if need be, I'm not too exercised about including a reasonably wide group of people. Also, of course, we should hope that the sorts of innovations that might involve this group would be relatively rare. But, for instance, there's current work afoot to rename all the root servers to give a little more room in the DNS priming query; and I'd like to believe that we all think maximal co- operation in making those sorts of changes is the sort of thing we can count on.
Yes, absolutely, any major change in the names RZ operations needs to have input from numbers and the IETF. I have no problem with broader inclusion within the committee. I do, however, want to see the remit of this committee clearly restricted to the names. It seemed to me from the initial reading that there was still confusion about this (and these concerns were amply borne out).
--MM _______________________________________________ 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
Hi, There seems to be some confusion. If what you're asking re: "authorization role" is NTIA's role in authorizing root zone changes, then no. But that's not what is being discussed (as far as I know). I believe the role envisioned for RZERC was to take over the role NTIA performs relating to making sure we (the ICANN community) don't break the top level of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, not just the naming system, that are coordinated by ICANN (the organization) as the IANA Functions Operator. I believe the reason NTIA hasn't (in recent memory) been involved in anything but names is because there was no need: there were no architectural changes in the purview of the IANA Functions Operator that risked breaking the top level of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. However, I believe if safe to say that if such architectural changes were suggested for numbers or protocol parameters, NTIA would have contractually required ICANN, as the IANA Functions Operator, to jump through as many hoops as we jumped through when we DNSSEC-signed the root. (and yes, I'm aware of the interesting political times that would have caused) If "the community" wishes to not follow that model, that's fine, but I do not believe that was what was originally envisioned. Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really) On 5/9/16, 10:44 AM, "cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Gomes, Chuck" <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org on behalf of cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Alan,
Do you see the RZERC as having an authorization role?
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 10:38 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
As I said in an earlier message, if the other communities want to set up a similar consultative group, it will make things more complex for the IANA folks, but sure, that could work.
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.
Alan
At 09/05/2016 10:05 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I wonder if we should let the numbers and protocol communities decide how they would like this to happen.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 9:53 PM To: Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
-----Original Message----- Given that the whole thing just advises the Board and can be reconstituted later if need be, I'm not too exercised about including a reasonably wide group of people. Also, of course, we should hope that the sorts of innovations that might involve this group would be relatively rare. But, for instance, there's current work afoot to rename all the root servers to give a little more room in the DNS priming query; and I'd like to believe that we all think maximal co- operation in making those sorts of changes is the sort of thing we can count on.
Yes, absolutely, any major change in the names RZ operations needs to have input from numbers and the IETF. I have no problem with broader inclusion within the committee. I do, however, want to see the remit of this committee clearly restricted to the names. It seemed to me from the initial reading that there was still confusion about this (and these concerns were amply borne out).
--MM _______________________________________________ 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
-----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.
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 "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.
I too am concerned that this seems to go beyond what was needed or contemplated. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> On 5/9/16, 11:31 AM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton@gatech.edu> 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.
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 "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.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 10:38:12AM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
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.
In the proposal, there was one. It's the Board. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
At 10/05/2016 06:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 10:38:12AM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
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.
In the proposal, there was one. It's the Board.
The comment was in regard to the numbers and parameters communities establishing a parallel consultative community. Alan
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrew Sullivan -
Burr, Becky -
David Conrad -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mueller, Milton L