architectural changes to the root system
-----Original Message----- On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 02:16:23AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
This issue (who makes decisions about or approves "architectural changes to the root system" in the absence of the NTIA) bears further review. The CSC doesn't seem like the right place at all. The PTI Board makes some sense, but only if we are not keeping it minimalist. Could the NTIA role simply disappear (as we propose to happen with the authorization/validation function)?
Why isn't this the names community within ICANN? That's where the policy resides, I thought?
Good point. While the policy might be developed by some combination of ccNSO and GNSO, The "decider" should be the PTI board, not the ICANN board. Speaking as someone who was on DT-F, we understood these "architectural changes" to be processes that drew on a broad range of expertise around the community, and viewed NTIA's role as someone who made the final approval rather than as someone who ran the policy process. Another point here is that ICANN's policy making apparatus is actually poorly organized when it comes to decisions that cross ccTLD and GTLD lines. I think they would have to form a cross-community working group to deal with such issues. Nothing terribly difficult about that, but I still think it makes a lot more sense for the recommendations of such a ccwg to be submitted to the PTI board for approval than the ICANN board.
This raises the issue of separation -- if we involve the PTI Board in policy, isn't that the wrong side of the line? Shouldn't policy be dealt with on the ICANN side of the divide? (Also, we are requiring more of a working board, and less of a minimalist board by going down this road.) On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 02:16:23AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
This issue (who makes decisions about or approves "architectural changes to the root system" in the absence of the NTIA) bears further review. The CSC doesn't seem like the right place at all. The PTI Board makes some sense, but only if we are not keeping it minimalist. Could the NTIA role simply disappear (as we propose to happen with the authorization/validation function)?
Why isn't this the names community within ICANN? That's where the policy resides, I thought?
Good point. While the policy might be developed by some combination of ccNSO and GNSO, The "decider" should be the PTI board, not the ICANN board. Speaking as someone who was on DT-F, we understood these "architectural changes" to be processes that drew on a broad range of expertise around the community, and viewed NTIA's role as someone who made the final approval rather than as someone who ran the policy process.
Another point here is that ICANN's policy making apparatus is actually poorly organized when it comes to decisions that cross ccTLD and GTLD lines. I think they would have to form a cross-community working group to deal with such issues. Nothing terribly difficult about that, but I still think it makes a lot more sense for the recommendations of such a ccwg to be submitted to the PTI board for approval than the ICANN board.
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 04:30:55PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
This raises the issue of separation -- if we involve the PTI Board in policy, isn't that the wrong side of the line? Shouldn't policy be dealt with on the ICANN side of the divide? (Also, we are requiring more of a working board, and less of a minimalist board by going down this road.)
I agree with this. The PTI board, and for that matter the PTI, does what it's told unless that "what it's told" runs contrary to what IANA ought to be doing. For names that might be slightly different than for other types of registries, but certainly instructions (1) that it can't understand or (2) that are inconsistent with other parts of the system or (3) that do not conform to the technical criteria for the DNS or (4) that are inconsistent with the overarching policy would have to wait until resolution of the condition. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] This raises the issue of separation -- if we involve the PTI Board in policy, isn't that the wrong side of the line? It’s a good question, but my answer would be: No, not when the “policy” involves the processes and procedures for updating the root zone. (Also, we are requiring more of a working board, and less of a minimalist board by going down this road.) MM: Not sure I buy into the minimalist board concept when it comes to PTI. I don’t see the need for a big board, and I don’t see the need for a board that broadly represents gTLD policy stakeholders, but I see no reason why the board of PTI should not be ‘working’ on those things about the IANA functions that require supervision and decision making. The PTI board would be more specialized and focused than any other board in that respect. Better positioned to make a decision than ICANN board.
participants (3)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Greg Shatan -
Milton L Mueller