All, There was a request for an update regarding the Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) to be provided on today's IOTF call. As ICANN was unable to provide this update on the call due to time constraint, this update is being sent to the IOTF mail list. On 16 March 2016, Akram published a blog that provided an update regarding the ongoing discussions that ICANN and Verisign are engaged in to finalize the RZMA. The blog can be found at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-stab.... Since the publication of this blog, ICANN and Verisign continue to engage in discussions to finalize the few remaining open items. The target completion date that we shared with the CWG on the last call two weeks ago was mid-April. Although ICANN and Verisign have made progress, that target completion date will be pushed to end of April. Once a draft RZMA is finalized, it will be posted for public review. Warm regards, Trang Nguyen
Trang: Akram’s blog says: ... One of the tasks that must be completed is for ICANN and Verisign to enter into a Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA). Another is to extend the .com Registry Agreement to run for the same term as the RZMA, which ICANN and Verisign believe enhances the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. … The RMZA and then .com registry agreement are both important, and they both have an impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. However, I do not understand the need for them to have the same term. I do not want to spend valuable time on the call on this topic, but a short note to the list about this would be helpful to me. Russ On Apr 13, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Trang Nguyen via IOTF <iotf@icann.org> wrote:
All,
There was a request for an update regarding the Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) to be provided on today’s IOTF call. As ICANN was unable to provide this update on the call due to time constraint, this update is being sent to the IOTF mail list.
On 16 March 2016, Akram published a blog that provided an update regarding the ongoing discussions that ICANN and Verisign are engaged in to finalize the RZMA. The blog can be found at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-stab....
Since the publication of this blog, ICANN and Verisign continue to engage in discussions to finalize the few remaining open items. The target completion date that we shared with the CWG on the last call two weeks ago was mid-April. Although ICANN and Verisign have made progress, that target completion date will be pushed to end of April. Once a draft RZMA is finalized, it will be posted for public review.
Warm regards,
Trang Nguyen
Trang Just for info...... I remember as part of Verisign's current contract to operate .COM that NTIA had the option to review (regulate) the pricing of .COM names - who will have that oversight post transition? For background ..... Before NTIA stepped in, ICANN in the past allowed .COM name prices to increase dramatically as they claimed a slice of the .COM increase.... so prices were in effect (un)regulated Thanks Best Paul Quoting Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>:
Trang:
Akrams blog says:
... One of the tasks that must be completed is for ICANN and Verisign to enter into a Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA). Another is to extend the .com Registry Agreement to run for the same term as the RZMA, which ICANN and Verisign believe enhances the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure.
The RMZA and then .com registry agreement are both important, and they both have an impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. However, I do not understand the need for them to have the same term.
I do not want to spend valuable time on the call on this topic, but a short note to the list about this would be helpful to me.
Russ
On Apr 13, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Trang Nguyen via IOTF <iotf@icann.org> wrote:
All,
There was a request for an update regarding the Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) to be provided on todays IOTF call. As ICANN was unable to provide this update on the call due to time constraint, this update is being sent to the IOTF mail list.
On 16 March 2016, Akram published a blog that provided an update regarding the ongoing discussions that ICANN and Verisign are engaged in to finalize the RZMA. The blog can be found at
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-stab....
Since the publication of this blog, ICANN and Verisign continue to engage
in discussions to finalize the few remaining open items. The target completion date that we shared with the CWG on the last call two weeks ago was mid-April. Although ICANN and Verisign have made progress, that target completion date will be pushed to end of April. Once a draft RZMA is finalized, it will be posted for public review.
Warm regards,
Trang Nguyen
I can't remember a time when .com prices were unregulated. Please tell when that was. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: iotf-bounces@icann.org [mailto:iotf-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul M Kane - CWG Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 2:50 PM To: Russ Housley Cc: iotf@icann.org Subject: Re: [IOTF] Update on RZMA Trang Just for info...... I remember as part of Verisign's current contract to operate .COM that NTIA had the option to review (regulate) the pricing of .COM names - who will have that oversight post transition? For background ..... Before NTIA stepped in, ICANN in the past allowed .COM name prices to increase dramatically as they claimed a slice of the .COM increase.... so prices were in effect (un)regulated Thanks Best Paul Quoting Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>:
Trang:
Akram's blog says:
... One of the tasks that must be completed is for ICANN and Verisign to enter into a Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA). Another is to extend the .com Registry Agreement to run for the same term as the RZMA, which ICANN and Verisign believe enhances the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. ...
The RMZA and then .com registry agreement are both important, and they both have an impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. However, I do not understand the need for them to have the same term.
I do not want to spend valuable time on the call on this topic, but a short note to the list about this would be helpful to me.
Russ
On Apr 13, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Trang Nguyen via IOTF <iotf@icann.org> wrote:
All,
There was a request for an update regarding the Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) to be provided on today's IOTF call. As ICANN was unable to provide this update on the call due to time constraint, this update is being sent to the IOTF mail list.
On 16 March 2016, Akram published a blog that provided an update regarding the ongoing discussions that ICANN and Verisign are engaged in to finalize the RZMA. The blog can be found at
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-stab....
Since the publication of this blog, ICANN and Verisign continue to engage
in discussions to finalize the few remaining open items. The target completion date that we shared with the CWG on the last call two weeks ago was mid-April. Although ICANN and Verisign have made progress, that target completion date will be pushed to end of April. Once a draft RZMA is finalized, it will be posted for public review.
Warm regards,
Trang Nguyen
_______________________________________________ IOTF mailing list IOTF@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iotf
Dear Paul, Thank you for your message about the RZMA and the extension of the .COM registry agreement. This is simply an extension of the term of the current .COM registry agreement and no provisions are being modified. Warm regards, Trang -----Original Message----- From: Paul M Kane - CWG <paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk> Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:50 AM To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org>, "iotf@icann.org" <iotf@icann.org> Subject: Re: [IOTF] Update on RZMA
Trang
Just for info...... I remember as part of Verisign's current contract to operate .COM that NTIA had the option to review (regulate) the pricing of .COM names - who will have that oversight post transition?
For background ..... Before NTIA stepped in, ICANN in the past allowed .COM name prices to increase dramatically as they claimed a slice of the .COM increase.... so prices were in effect (un)regulated
Thanks
Best
Paul
Quoting Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>:
Trang:
Akram¹s blog says:
... One of the tasks that must be completed is for ICANN and Verisign to enter into a Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA). Another is to extend the .com Registry Agreement to run for the same term as the RZMA, which ICANN and Verisign believe enhances the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. Š
The RMZA and then .com registry agreement are both important, and they both have an impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. However, I do not understand the need for them to have the same term.
I do not want to spend valuable time on the call on this topic, but a short note to the list about this would be helpful to me.
Russ
On Apr 13, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Trang Nguyen via IOTF <iotf@icann.org> wrote:
All,
There was a request for an update regarding the Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) to be provided on today¹s IOTF call. As ICANN was unable to provide this update on the call due to time constraint, this update is being sent to the IOTF mail list.
On 16 March 2016, Akram published a blog that provided an update regarding the ongoing discussions that ICANN and Verisign are engaged in to finalize the RZMA. The blog can be found at
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-st ability-and-resiliency-of-root-zone-maintenance.
Since the publication of this blog, ICANN and Verisign continue to
engage in discussions to finalize the few remaining open items. The target completion date that we shared with the CWG on the last call two weeks ago was mid-April. Although ICANN and Verisign have made progress, that target completion date will be pushed to end of April. Once a draft RZMA is finalized, it will be posted for public review.
Warm regards,
Trang Nguyen
Dear Russ, Thank you for your message. Verisign and ICANN agree with your statement that the RZMA and the .COM registry agreement both have an impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. This is why we have determined that it is in the public interest for the terms of the two agreements to be the same--to promote the stability of root operations [through the transition] and to remove potential instability that might otherwise arise if the terms did not coincide. Warm regards, Trang From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com<mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:31 AM To: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>> Cc: "iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>" <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [IOTF] Update on RZMA Trang: Akram's blog says: ... One of the tasks that must be completed is for ICANN and Verisign to enter into a Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA). Another is to extend the .com Registry Agreement to run for the same term as the RZMA, which ICANN and Verisign believe enhances the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. ... The RMZA and then .com registry agreement are both important, and they both have an impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. However, I do not understand the need for them to have the same term. I do not want to spend valuable time on the call on this topic, but a short note to the list about this would be helpful to me. Russ On Apr 13, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Trang Nguyen via IOTF <iotf@icann.org<mailto:iotf@icann.org>> wrote: All, There was a request for an update regarding the Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) to be provided on today's IOTF call. As ICANN was unable to provide this update on the call due to time constraint, this update is being sent to the IOTF mail list. On 16 March 2016, Akram published a blog that provided an update regarding the ongoing discussions that ICANN and Verisign are engaged in to finalize the RZMA. The blog can be found at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-stab.... Since the publication of this blog, ICANN and Verisign continue to engage in discussions to finalize the few remaining open items. The target completion date that we shared with the CWG on the last call two weeks ago was mid-April. Although ICANN and Verisign have made progress, that target completion date will be pushed to end of April. Once a draft RZMA is finalized, it will be posted for public review. Warm regards, Trang Nguyen
Trang: Okay. Thanks for the explanation. Russ On Apr 25, 2016, at 8:37 PM, Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Russ,
Thank you for your message. Verisign and ICANN agree with your statement that the RZMA and the .COM registry agreement both have an impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. This is why we have determined that it is in the public interest for the terms of the two agreements to be the same--to promote the stability of root operations [through the transition] and to remove potential instability that might otherwise arise if the terms did not coincide.
Warm regards,
Trang
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:31 AM To: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org> Cc: "iotf@icann.org" <iotf@icann.org> Subject: Re: [IOTF] Update on RZMA
Trang:
Akram’s blog says:
... One of the tasks that must be completed is for ICANN and Verisign to enter into a Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA). Another is to extend the .com Registry Agreement to run for the same term as the RZMA, which ICANN and Verisign believe enhances the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. …
The RMZA and then .com registry agreement are both important, and they both have an impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the root zone infrastructure. However, I do not understand the need for them to have the same term.
I do not want to spend valuable time on the call on this topic, but a short note to the list about this would be helpful to me.
Russ
On Apr 13, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Trang Nguyen via IOTF <iotf@icann.org> wrote:
All,
There was a request for an update regarding the Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA) to be provided on today’s IOTF call. As ICANN was unable to provide this update on the call due to time constraint, this update is being sent to the IOTF mail list.
On 16 March 2016, Akram published a blog that provided an update regarding the ongoing discussions that ICANN and Verisign are engaged in to finalize the RZMA. The blog can be found at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/a-progress-update-ensuring-the-security-stab....
Since the publication of this blog, ICANN and Verisign continue to engage in discussions to finalize the few remaining open items. The target completion date that we shared with the CWG on the last call two weeks ago was mid-April. Although ICANN and Verisign have made progress, that target completion date will be pushed to end of April. Once a draft RZMA is finalized, it will be posted for public review.
Warm regards,
Trang Nguyen
participants (4)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Paul M Kane - CWG -
Russ Housley -
Trang Nguyen