[DT-F] Design Team F kickoff

[Milton Mueller]

Read the NTIA words carefully. 

> which would require that NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities."

Has the NTIA initiated such a "related and parallel transition"? If so can you tell me where it is? Fact is it doesn't exist yet. They are waiting to see what we do and what Congress will accept before taking that step. 

On your second point, though I agree that giving IANA RZM might be too much concentration of power, there is a huge difference between a legally separated IANA  having it and today's ICANN having it, as ICANN is currently the policymaker and IANA. 

I don't agree that a separate group at a separate time needs to consider these issues I think we have to consider them now. 

Milton L Mueller
Professor, Syracuse School of Information Studies

> On Apr 7, 2015, at 20:58, David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Milton,
> 
> 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.
> 
> While I agree there is no possibility ICANN will assume the RZM function (I don't think is remotely feasible politically, but that might just be me), I thought NTIA made it clear that the RZM function was a part of a parallel transition:
> 
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ
> 
> "Q. What impact does this announcement have on the cooperative agreement with Verisign?
> 
> A. Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root zone file management), which would require that NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities."
> 
>  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.
> 
> Sorry, you lost me.  If I understand Jordan's concern, the worry is about concentrating operational control in a single entity.  I understand and personally agree with that concern.  But what would it matter if the single entity is ICANN or "a legally separate affiliate with a board that is independent of ICANN"?  In either case, wouldn't a single entity have complete power/responsibility for generating the root zone?
> 
> 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.
> 
> Agreed.  From my perspective, the primary benefit of separating functional components is to facilitate "two person rule" controls, making it much harder for either accidental or malicious changes to be made to the root zone (such changes would require collusion of two independent parties).  The primary downside is increased complexity with all that implies to cost, security, stability, etc.
> 
> What that functional decomposition should be is likely a topic for a different set of people and a whole lot more time.
> 
> Regards,
> -drc
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150407/71a5553c/attachment-0001.html>