Manal
Martin
Further to my previous questions WHICH YET TO BE ASNWERED .
I RAISE THE FOLLOWING
AT PRESENT TIME

2. Administrative Functions Associated with Root Management.

A second important aspect of the IANA function involves administrative functions associated with management of the authoritative domain-name system (DNS) root. Under the leadership of Dr. Postel, the IANA team undertook the project of delegating 243 of the country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) listed (except for grandfathered cases) on ISO 3166-1 (three more ccTLDs are still undelegated). These 243 ccTLDs, in conjunction with the seven generic top-level domains (gTLDs), and the special, legacy second-level domain, in-add.arpa, make up the root zone of the DNS that is disseminated to thirteen root name servers deployed throughout the world.

Continuing maintenance of this root zone involves a variety of administrative functions that are key to maintaining the stable operation of the DNS. These tasks involve, first, maintenance of accurate records not only of the root-zone file information (i.e. correspondence of TLDs to host computers providing authoritative name service for those domains) but also of detailed contact information so that persons seeking second-level domains know who to contact and so that problems with a particular TLD can be quickly resolved. Routine requests for technical changes are made by the delegated operators of ccTLDs and the IANA/ICANN team has developed various means of verifying the authenticity of these requests based on its familiarity with the various operators. The IANA/ICANN team is experienced in working closely with Network Solutions, which currently generates the authoritative root-zone file and operates the root-zone Whois service, and with the U.S. Department of Commerce, which approves various changes to the root-zone file. ICANN proposes to continue processing routine requests for technical changes in the root-zone file and root-zone contact information in the same manner as is currently done, subject to changes in procedures agreed with the U.S. Department of Commerce Government consistent with ICANN's MOU with that agency.

A second aspect of the administrative tasks associated with root management is receiving requests for redelegation of existing TLDs and, where new TLDs are created, for initial delegation. After receiving the request, the IANA investigates the circumstances of the request, evaluates its conformity with the relevant guidelines as contained in ICANN Corporate Policy (ICP-1), reports the results to the U.S. Department of Commerce, and if appropriate recommends a course of action on the request. Often a key stability-enhancing technique is the mediation of delegation disputes, which the ICANN staff has performed frequently, resulting in nearly all disputes being resolved by a consensual solution.

At this stage in the U.S. Government's transition to private-sector-led technical management of the Internet, the U.S. Department of Commerce acts on delegation and redelegation requests by giving approval as appropriate to changes in root-zone files and associated information. Nothing in the current contract contemplates any change in the IANA's role with respect to authorizing modifications, additions, or deletions to the root-zone file or associated information that constitute delegation or redelegation of top-level domains; those issues are to be dealt with under the MOU between ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce and past and future amendments to that MOU.

Actions by the U.S. Department of Commerce on delegation and redelegation requests are made after reviewing reports submitted by the IANA, which makes the reliability of the reports especially vital. The ICANN team is uniquely situated to perform the investigation and reporting function based on its unequalled familiarity with ccTLD delegees worldwide, familiarity of precedents in prior delegation and redelegation situations, and longstanding reputation for handling requests impartially and in a manner that promotes the benefits of the Internet worldwide.

A third aspect of the administrative tasks associated with root management is coordination with the operators of the thirteen root nameservers deployed throughout the world. ICANN is closely involved with the operation of the root nameservers, and this relationship will permit it to facilitate a stable transition from the current system of volunteer (but nonetheless highly professional) operation to a more accountable and formally documented system. ICANN itself operates one of the root nameservers ("L"), one of ICANN's nineteen directors (Jun Murai) is involved in the operation of another ("M"), and ICANN works closely with USC-ISI's staff, which operates another ("B"). In addition, ICANN's Root Server System Advisory Committee has as its members the operators of all thirteen root nameservers. ICANN proposes to work collaboratively through the Committee to develop a set of contracts between ICANN and each operator that will permit stable evolution and enhancement of the procedures under which the root nameserver system is operated"

Questions

After transition who and how and under what accountability terms the above tasks are envisaged to be done

Regards

KAVOUSS .

'

 

2014-09-30 13:15 GMT+02:00 Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg>:

Many thanks Martin .. I've noted your concern on Q9 1/2 and added the sentence you proposed to Q14's answer .. I have incorporated all comments, to my best, in the attached version and in Dropbox .. Hope this reflects accurately what has been suggested ..

I'm not clear about the modifications you are suggesting for Q15 & Q16, so apologies for that ..

 

I also recall that we, the drafting group, have agreed to share a clean version with ICG colleagues, so if you have comments pending from earlier drafting iterations appreciate adding them or letting me know ..

 

Kind Regards

--Manal

 

From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:41 PM
To: Manal Ismail
Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..

 

I agree with Manal's concern on the final sentence of Q9 1/2.  Better might be to look at the level of support for the position and the way the community proposal addresses the issue.

 

On Q14 is it worth adding after the first sentence that, "Operational communities have been asked to consider oversight and accountability in their proposals."

 

For Q15, Manal is right about running behind the moving train. But I now realise that the answer is very ICANN centric!  In part this is corrected in the next question, but I would suggest that  this question should look at the operational communities and those directly engaged with them (GAC, ALAC...), while the next question could then refer to addressing those who do not take part, but will be affected - the business community, ccTLDs that are not in ICANN etc

Sent from my iPhone


On 30 Sep 2014, at 10:48, "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:

Many thanks Milton ..

Noted ..

Further comments inline below ..

 

Kind Regards

--Manal

 

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:13 AM
To: Manal Ismail; internal-cg@icann.org
Subject: RE: ICG FAQ ..

 

Manal et al

 

Good start.

 

I would propose the following modifications.

 

Add a new           question between #9 and #10, which I here label 9 ½ :

 

9 ½ Can I submit my own proposal for how the IANA transition should take place?

 

You can, but the ICG is not authorized to pick and choose among competing proposals. That would centralize the authority over the IANA transition in ICG’s hands, and the general preference is for a bottom up, consensual process. If you submit a proposal directly to the ICG without participating in the processes convened by the operational communities, all the ICG can do is forward that proposal to the relevant OCs. If you think your ideas have been ignored or not fairly treated in the OC proposal development process, you can express this view directly to the ICG or in the public comment period. But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process.

 

[MI]: Noted .. will add it to the new version that is to be circulated shortly .. Although, personally, I would be reluctant to leave the last sentence "But the ICG cannot give these objections any weight if the person made no effort to participate in the operational community-convened process." .. I think it's a bit negative and I don't think it adds ..  

 

On Question 14, I found the answer not very meaningful. I would propose the following alternative language:

 

ICG is closely following ICANN Accountability Process. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities, ICG will conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability. If there are gaps or problems, ICG will check to see whether these gaps are filled by the results of the ICANN enhanced accountability process. If they are not, ICG will return the proposals to the relevant operational community(ies) for amendment.

 

[MI]: Happy to replace with your proposed language .. Looking forward to other reactions as this is one of the few questions we did not discuss thoroughly and have no agreed position on ..

 

On Question 15, “How is ICG reaching out?”  I would delete the language “ICG members have participated in the IANA stewardship transition session held at the ICANN 50 meeting in London, and  

If someone asks that question now they don’t care what we did 3-4 months ago. They want to know what we are doing now.

 

[MI]: Noted .. although soon after, this will also become a past event.

 

From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:16 PM
To: internal-cg@icann.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..

 

Dear All ..

 

Please find attached, and in dropbox, a draft FAQ we (Martin, Patrik, Mohamed, Alissa & myself) have prepared to be discussed on the upcoming call ..

This is supposed to be a living document ..  So the target is to come up with an initial agreed version rather than an exhaustive complete one ..

 

Looking forward to receiving your feedback over email and/or during the call ..

 

Kind Regards

--Manal

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg