Re: [CWG-Stewardship] NTIA- An Update on the IANA Transition
Seun, we will have to disagree on this then. The proposal itself is neither consistent nor inconsistent with those sections of the DT-F proposal, because it is silent on them. The proposal is only addressing the mechanics of the testing and phasing out of the NTI authorization. It is am alternative methodology to section 1a. However, the Questions and Answers that follow the proposal do privide some idea of how the issues raised in 1b may play out. Section 1.b.i talks about what will happen if the NTIA is still tied to Verisign under the Cooperative Agreement past the actual moment of transition, and says there will need to be an amendment of that Cooperative Agreement. The answer to "Q. How will this impact the Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and Verisign?" mentions just such an amendment. Section 1.b.ii talks about what will happen should the NTIA-Verisign Cooperative agreement be dissolved at the point of transition. It is not obvious that this will happen at that point or even later, but the answer to "Q. How will this impact the Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and Verisign?" alludes to such a replacement. For the record, although the general understanding of the March 2014 announcement and in particular the associated Q/A (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-ro...) alludes to the phase-out of the NTIA-Verisign Cooperative Agreement:
Q. What impact does this announcement have on the cooperative agreement with Verisign? A. Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root zone file management), which would require that NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities. That does not actually SAY that the cooperative agreement will be phased out, only that the RESPONSIBILITIES under the agreement will be transitioned. Perhaps the NTIA plans to keep the Cooperative Agreement in some form for some period of time. I have no idea. The reference in the most recent questions to a new ICANN-Verisign agreement seems to imply that it will be replaced at some point.
Alan At 23/08/2015 02:34 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hi Alan,
Unless there is another document/process to expect, I don't think the proposal is entirely consistent with Section b (i and ii) of DT-F report which specifically indicates what is expected of the agreement.
From my readings, It seem the proposal attempts to address bii of DT-F which means the RZM transition will be completed by/before stewardship transition (all hopefully within next year). Doing that however will not have addressed item b of DT-F which has to do with the agreement between the Verisign and NTIA.
So I don't think we should say the proposal is generally consistent with DT-F as IMO the agreement would be the major piece in the RZM transition.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. The proposal pointed to by the NTIA Blog entry (and by Milton's piece) is an implementation of the recommendation of the CWG and DT-F. But carried to an extreme. It allows the transition to occur with no code changes and virtually no changes in procedure other than those which will be well tested prior to the transition.
I think that the temporary cloning of the entire RZMS is a rather extreme measure to avoid making coding or operational changes at the moment of transition, but it *IS* following the sound engineering practice of minimizing concurrent changes, and specifically ones that cannot be fully tested prior to the moment of transition. If it had been me, I would have developed the revised code and used the cloned system to test THAT....
As far as I can tell, this proposal has nothing to do with the relationship of the NTIA and Verisign and their cooperative agreement (other than altering the mechanics of what is done under the agreement).
Alan
At 22/08/2015 10:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hi,
Just to mention that Milton wrote an interesting blog post summary about this proposal:
Inline with determining consistency with what DT-F proposed, it will be good to ask the question of whether the proposal shared by Larry will ultimately remove the administrative role NTIA. The current wording in the proposal does not make that clear and I think that would indeed determine if we are really done with stewardship transition or just scratching the surface.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 18 Aug 2015 08:31, "Seun Ojedeji" <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > wrote: Hello, Larry has just posted an update on the IANA transition and extension of ICANN contract. An item of the update is the proposal that addresses the administrative(middleman) role of NTIA in the update of the root. Although the CWG did not address this in its proposal due to scope, it highlights some high level principles (expectations) on this. It may be good to check if the ICANN/Verisign proposal meets such expectations. Regards
An Update on the IANA Transition
August 17, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling
The Internetâs global multistakeholder communityity has made tremendous progress in its work to develop a proposal to transition the historic stewardship role NTIA has played related to Internetââ¬s domain name system (DNS). When we <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>announced our intent in March 2014 to complete the privatization of the DNS, we noted that the base period of our contract with ICANN to perform technical functions related to the DNS, known as the IANA functions, expired on September 30, 2015. However, it has become increasingly apparent over the last few months that the community needs time to complete its work, have the plan reviewed by the U.S. Government and then implement it if it is approved. Accordingly, in May we asked the groups developing the transition documents how long it would take to finish and implement their proposals. After factoring in time for public comment, U.S. Government evaluation and implementation of the proposals, the community estimated it could take until at least September 2016 to complete this process. In response to their feedback, we informed Congress on Friday that we plan to extend our IANA contract with ICANN for one year to September 30, 2016. Beyond 2016, we have options to extend the contract for up to three additional years if needed. This one-year extension will provide the community with the time it needs to finish its work. The groups are already far along in planning the IANA transition and are currently taking comments on their IANA transition proposals. As we indicated in a recent <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iana_transition_comment_notice_08102015.pdf>Federal Register notice, we encourage all interested stakeholders to engage and weigh in on the proposals. In preparation for the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship transition, NTIA also asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal detailing how best to remove NTIAâs administrative re role associated with root zone management, which the groups working on the transition were not asked to address. We asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal detailing how best to do this in a manner that maintains the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS. Under the current root zone management system, Verisign edits and distributes the root zone file after it has received authorization to do so from NTIA. Verisign and ICANN have developed a <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf>proposal that outlines a technical plan and testing regime for phasing out the largely clerical role NTIA currently plays in this process. The testing will occur in a parallel environment that will not disrupt the current operation of the root zone management system. These developments will help ensure that the IANA transition will be done in a manner that preserves the security and stability of the DNS. Cheers! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: <http://??>+2348035233535 alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Seun, we will have to disagree on this then.
The proposal itself is neither consistent nor inconsistent with those sections of the DT-F proposal, because it is silent on them.
I sure agree with the "non-of the above" you indicated. So for clarity and like i said, it means there will still be a separate process that would determine how the agreement will be handled. The DT-F reiterate that point in 1b:
......The NTIA has said that there will be a parallel but separate transition to disengage the NTIA from the Root Zone Maintainer. The exact form of the latter transition is not currently known, nor what, if anything, will replace the current Cooperative Agreement and the parties involved in providing the services currently covered under the Cooperative Agreement.
The proposal is only addressing the mechanics of the testing and phasing out of the NTI authorization. It is am alternative methodology to section 1a.
Yeah that is clear, it is said (as quoted from DT-F above) that a parallel process will be put in place and it can be easily confused to be the NTIA/ICANN/Verisgn proposal. The goal for me is to have good clarity on current status vis what is still expected to be achieved/provided.
That does not actually SAY that the cooperative agreement will be phased
out, only that the RESPONSIBILITIES under the agreement will be transitioned. Perhaps the NTIA plans to keep the Cooperative Agreement in some form for some period of time. I have no idea. The reference in the most recent questions to a new ICANN-Verisign agreement seems to imply that it will be replaced at some point.
Well i don't understand the post-transition practicality of what you said above; So NTIA and VeriSign will maintain the agreement but ICANN will carry out NTIA part of the responsibility, it does make sense in implementation/testing phase but not after oversight transition. Unless its determined that the transition proposals(both CCWG and ICG) is insufficient/over-sufficient to keep ICANN accountable/stable post-transition. Regards
Alan
At 23/08/2015 02:34 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hi Alan,
Unless there is another document/process to expect, I don't think the proposal is entirely consistent with Section b (i and ii) of DT-F report which specifically indicates what is expected of the agreement.
From my readings, It seem the proposal attempts to address bii of DT-F which means the RZM transition will be completed by/before stewardship transition (all hopefully within next year). Doing that however will not have addressed item b of DT-F which has to do with the agreement between the Verisign and NTIA.
So I don't think we should say the proposal is generally consistent with DT-F as IMO the agreement would be the major piece in the RZM transition.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. The proposal pointed to by the NTIA Blog entry (and by Milton's piece) is an implementation of the recommendation of the CWG and DT-F. But carried to an extreme. It allows the transition to occur with no code changes and virtually no changes in procedure other than those which will be well tested prior to the transition.
I think that the temporary cloning of the entire RZMS is a rather extreme measure to avoid making coding or operational changes at the moment of transition, but it *IS* following the sound engineering practice of minimizing concurrent changes, and specifically ones that cannot be fully tested prior to the moment of transition. If it had been me, I would have developed the revised code and used the cloned system to test THAT....
As far as I can tell, this proposal has nothing to do with the relationship of the NTIA and Verisign and their cooperative agreement (other than altering the mechanics of what is done under the agreement).
Alan
At 22/08/2015 10:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hi,
Just to mention that Milton wrote an interesting blog post summary about this proposal:
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/18/whats-going-on-between-ntia-ica...
Inline with determining consistency with what DT-F proposed, it will be good to ask the question of whether the proposal shared by Larry will ultimately remove the administrative role NTIA. The current wording in the proposal does not make that clear and I think that would indeed determine if we are really done with stewardship transition or just scratching the surface.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 18 Aug 2015 08:31, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > wrote: Hello, Larry has just posted an update on the IANA transition and extension of ICANN contract. An item of the update is the proposal that addresses the administrative(middleman) role of NTIA in the update of the root. Although the CWG did not address this in its proposal due to scope, it highlights some high level principles (expectations) on this. It may be good to check if the ICANN/Verisign proposal meets such expectations. Regards
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition
*An Update on the IANA Transition*
August 17, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling
The Internet’s global multistakeholder communityity has made tremendous progress in its work to develop a proposal to transition the historic stewardship role NTIA has played related to Internet’s domain name system (DNS). When we announced <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-...> our intent in March 2014 to complete the privatization of the DNS, we noted that the base period of our contract with ICANN to perform technical functions related to the DNS, known as the IANA functions, expired on September 30, 2015. However, it has become increasingly apparent over the last few months that the community needs time to complete its work, have the plan reviewed by the U.S. Government and then implement it if it is approved. Accordingly, in May we asked the groups developing the transition documents how long it would take to finish and implement their proposals. After factoring in time for public comment, U.S. Government evaluation and implementation of the proposals, the community estimated it could take until at least September 2016 to complete this process. In response to their feedback, we informed Congress on Friday that we plan to extend our IANA contract with ICANN for one year to September 30, 2016. Beyond 2016, we have options to extend the contract for up to three additional years if needed. This one-year extension will provide the community with the time it needs to finish its work. The groups are already far along in planning the IANA transition and are currently taking comments on their IANA transition proposals. As we indicated in a recent Federal Register notice <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iana_transition_comment_n...>, we encourage all interested stakeholders to engage and weigh in on the proposals. In preparation for the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship transition, NTIA also asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal detailing how best to remove NTIA’s administrative re role associated with root zone management, which the groups working on the transition were not asked to address. We asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal detailing how best to do this in a manner that maintains the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS. Under the current root zone management system, Verisign edits and distributes the root zone file after it has received authorization to do so from NTIA. Verisign and ICANN have developed a proposal <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_prop...> that outlines a technical plan and testing regime for phasing out the largely clerical role NTIA currently plays in this process. The testing will occur in a parallel environment that will not disrupt the current operation of the root zone management system. These developments will help ensure that the IANA transition will be done in a manner that preserves the security and stability of the DNS. Cheers! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 <http://??> alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
The key to understanding is humility - my view ! _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Seun Ojedeji