[DT-F] Design Team F kickoff

[Milton L Mueller]

Jordan
There is no possibility that IANA or ICANN will assume the RZM function in the near term. NTIA has deliberately reserved that from the transition and it is politically sensitive in Washington.

If there is movement of the IANA department into a legally separate affiliate with a board that is independent of ICANN, the thought of PT-IANA assuming the RZM functions is not so scary. There might be security and economic advantages in integrating the functions. If there is not such separation, I agree with you that a line of business restriction on concentrating these functions under ICANN would be a Really Bad Idea.

It might be good to catalogue the benefits and drawbacks of separating the RZM from the IANA function as part of the output of this group. If we understand and articulate better the purpose of the separation, our proposed framework might be better able to understand the requirements.

--MM

From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 6:41 PM
To: David Conrad
Cc: Milton L Mueller; CWG DT-F
Subject: Re: [DT-F] Design Team F kickoff

There's one thing that might be an elephant in this room or might not - which is the possibility or otherwise of the RZM being ICANN/IANA.

Without having discussed it with those who are actively working on these things, I think a line of business restriction on ICANN or IANA from ever doing that job themselves should be part of the transition plan.

Is it possible to link through to any content that could give us guidance on the *output* we need to deliver from this DT? Or is that the framework we need now to build (agreeing that doing so in 4 days isn't doable)?
cheers
Jordan


On 8 April 2015 at 10:05, David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org<mailto:david.conrad at icann.org>> wrote:
Milton,

David's proposed principles are a nice starting point but are quite generic and I don't see the value of calling for things like "accuracy" - no one will argue for inaccuracy and unless we can propose a framework that we believe improves accuracy, stability, etc. I am not sure of the value of such an exercise.

I had thought the idea behind the framework was that it would come up with the mechanisms by which the root management system could  evolve, including such areas as accuracy, stability, etc., instead of having us come up with that evolution (in 3 days and counting).  This isn't suggesting that anyone would argue for inaccuracy, rather it is suggesting that it would be good to have a process by which the existing system can be improved.

My understanding of the call for principles was to make sure we were all on the same page with regards to what we wanted to address in terms of the characteristics of the post-NTIA root management system.  I don't have a strong opinion on that matter, but figured it might be helpful.

I suggest that we continue working on this beyond the 4 days and start adjusting our framework to the proposed model that the CWG seems to be converging on.

A step before that would be to actually have a framework, no?

Regards,
-drc


_______________________________________________
cwg-dtf mailing list
cwg-dtf at icann.org<mailto:cwg-dtf at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dtf



--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150408/892b43c8/attachment.html>