Proposed DT-F Section 4 on split management function
I suggest that section 4 in both the body of the report and in Annex N be replaced with the following. Control of Root Zone Management Currently updating the Root Zone requires the active participation of three parties, the IANA Functions Operator, the Root Zone Maintainer and the NTIA. The IANA Functions Operator receives change requests from various sources, validates them, and sends them to the Root Zone Maintainer who, once they are authorized by the NTIA, updates the Root Zone File, DNSSEC signs it, and distributes it to the Root operators. Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG is not recommending any change to this operational relationship. The CWG is recommending that should there be a proposal to alter that relationship in the future, that it be subject to wide community consultation.
Alan, thanks for the quick turnaround. But I think this misses the mark in one way.
-----Original Message-----
Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG is not recommending any change to this operational relationship.
Actually, we are; e.g., we propose modifying software to account for absence of authorization function. We propose robustness studies, etc. What we are not doing is recommending any change in the _separation_ between the IANA functions operator and the root zone maintainer role. Could we reword it to be more exact in this way? Here is a revised proposal: "Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG is not recommending any change in the separation between the two at this time. The CWG is recommending that should there be a proposal to combine the two or make other changes in their respective roles in root zone modification, that it be subject to wide community consultation."
At 21/04/2015 02:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Alan, thanks for the quick turnaround. But I think this misses the mark in one way.
-----Original Message-----
Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG is not recommending any change to this operational relationship.
Actually, we are; e.g., we propose modifying software to account for absence of authorization function. We propose robustness studies, etc.
What we are not doing is recommending any change in the _separation_ between the IANA functions operator and the root zone maintainer role.
Could we reword it to be more exact in this way? Here is a revised proposal:
"Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG is not recommending any change in the separation between the two at this time. The CWG is recommending that should there be a proposal to combine the two or make other changes in their respective roles in root zone modification, that it be subject to wide community consultation."
Yes, of course we are talking about changes from the CURRENT operation, but I presumed that section 4 was not trying to overrule the previous paragraphs, so the "this operational relationship" was referring to the previous sentence saying there was now only IANA and the Maintainer. However, for clarity, I can agree to what you are suggesting. Alan
I have fine with Milton's rewording. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 3:12 PM To: Milton L Mueller; 'CWG IANA' Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Proposed DT-F Section 4 on split management function At 21/04/2015 02:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Alan, thanks for the quick turnaround. But I think this misses the mark in one way.
-----Original Message-----
Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG is not recommending any change to this operational relationship.
Actually, we are; e.g., we propose modifying software to account for absence of authorization function. We propose robustness studies, etc.
What we are not doing is recommending any change in the _separation_ between the IANA functions operator and the root zone maintainer role.
Could we reword it to be more exact in this way? Here is a revised proposal:
"Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG is not recommending any change in the separation between the two at this time. The CWG is recommending that should there be a proposal to combine the two or make other changes in their respective roles in root zone modification, that it be subject to wide community consultation."
Yes, of course we are talking about changes from the CURRENT operation, but I presumed that section 4 was not trying to overrule the previous paragraphs, so the "this operational relationship" was referring to the previous sentence saying there was now only IANA and the Maintainer. However, for clarity, I can agree to what you are suggesting. Alan _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi, This seems good to me. I still think this issue is out of scope for this effort, so not doing anything at this time is the right thing to do. avri On 21-Apr-15 14:59, Milton L Mueller wrote:
"Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG is not recommending any change in the separation between the two at this time. The CWG is recommending that should there be a proposal to combine the two or make other changes in their respective roles in root zone modification, that it be subject to wide community consultation."
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
I tend to agree with Avri on this as well. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 22 Apr 2015 02:52, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
This seems good to me.
I still think this issue is out of scope for this effort, so not doing anything at this time is the right thing to do.
avri
On 21-Apr-15 14:59, Milton L Mueller wrote:
"Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG is not recommending any change in the separation between the two at this time. The CWG is recommending that should there be a proposal to combine the two or make other changes in their respective roles in root zone modification, that it be subject to wide community consultation."
------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I'm happy enough with this, too, for now, though I would as previously stated far prefer a firm line of business restriction that prevented this ever coming to pass. Jordan On 22 April 2015 at 17:41, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
I tend to agree with Avri on this as well.
Regards
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 22 Apr 2015 02:52, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
This seems good to me.
I still think this issue is out of scope for this effort, so not doing anything at this time is the right thing to do.
avri
On 21-Apr-15 14:59, Milton L Mueller wrote:
"Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG is not recommending any change in the separation between the two at this time. The CWG is recommending that should there be a proposal to combine the two or make other changes in their respective roles in root zone modification, that it be subject to wide community consultation."
------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Jordan Carter -
Milton L Mueller -
Seun Ojedeji