Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
Milton, Yes, in theory ICANN and Verisign could put anything in any document, but the proposal was explicitly addressing ONLY Paragraph 150, section 1 of the CWG report. That intent may not be clear in reading it, but that is the case. It is a far more complex implementation that envisioned by DT-F, but that does not alter the intent. Alan At 02/10/2015 10:55 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
-----Original Message----- I don't think that the ICANN-Verisign proposal could meet that requirement because it is beyond their control. They are both dependent on action by NTIA.
I do not understand what you are saying here, Chuck. NTIA asked ICANN and Verisign for a proposal regarding post-transition RZM. They could propose whatever they liked. Yes, they depend on action by NTIA to implement it, but the ICG is asking whether the proposal meets requirements.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 1:55 PM To: Alan Greenberg; Marika Konings; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
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
-----Original Message-----
Yes, in theory ICANN and Verisign could put anything in any document, but the proposal was explicitly addressing ONLY Paragraph 150, section 1 of the CWG report.
So you agree that the answer to the ICG question should be something like: "No, the Verisign-ICANN proposal does not meet the requirements of 1150 Sections 2 and 3 because it only addresses the NTIA authorization role and does not address the nature of the agreement that would be required to ensure that PTI's zone file modifications are implemented by Verisign? It's worth recounting here that no one but, presumably, Verisign and ICANN are aware of what was in the NTIA solicitation for the proposal. So are you asserting that you have seen the solicitation and know they were instructed only to address paragraph 150 section 1? Or are you inferring that based on its content? The solicitation was never published. The published proposal says only that "NTIA has asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal as to how best remove the NTIA's administrative role associated with root zone management in a manner that maintains the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet's domain name system." It says nothing about the CWG proposal, much less specific paragraphs or sections.
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Mueller, Milton L