[CCWG-ACCT] [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Meeting CWG requirements for IANA Budget - pls comment
Dr Eberhard Lisse
el at lisse.NA
Fri Jul 24 13:20:54 UTC 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Thank you, this is helpful
But what I actually want to say is that the 'basic' RZM operations
must not become subject to a veto (as under current discussion
within the CCWG) of an ICANN budget.
I.e. there are IANA functions that may be used as leverage against
ICANN and there are functions that may not.
On 2015-07-24 13:58, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2015, at 13:17, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
>> If the Master Root (currently the A Root, me thinks) were to
>> switch to ICANN it must also have an ironclad and veto proof
>> budget for running expenses due to Safety and Stability reasons.
> Sorry for being a bit pedantic, but we must be correct on how the
> root zone management system works.
> The RZM is managed by ICANN, Verisign and NTIA together. Two
> agreements cover it. This will change as one of them is going
> away. Root server operators (including Verisign, running A-root)
> is fetching the root zone from whatever service the RZM is
> providing accordingly.
> Questions regarding potential implications on the RZM during the
> transition, is covered by for example the SSAC documents published
> lately. Specifically SAC-067, SAC-068, SAC-069, SAC-071 and
> What I think you say is that IF it is the case that the RZM
> arrangement is changing so that the operational costs for PTI
> increases there must be enough head room in the budget (and future
> budgets) to accommodate for it.
> Patrik Fältström Head of Research and Development Netnod
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 \ /
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community