[DT-F] Design Team F kickoff
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Wed Apr 8 13:32:20 UTC 2015
Very good point on the RZM acronym Jaap. We ran into the same issue in DT-M. For DT-M we decided to use RZM for the Root Zone Manager and refer to Root Zone Maintainer using its full name or just Maintainer if the context makes it clear.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jaap Akkerhuis
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 5:57 AM
To: CWG DT-F
Subject: Re: [DT-F] Design Team F kickoff
Jordan Carter writes:
>
> 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.
I assume you mean hear Root Zone Maintainer and not Root Zone Management? The latter is something I think about when seeing the RZM mni=emonic.
Whatever we and up writing, we should at least spell out what we mean.
jaap
>
> 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> 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
> > 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 > Skype: jordancarter > > *A better world through a better Internet * > > --001a11473ba4d9250605132a1c38 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <div dir=3D"ltr">There's one thing that might be an elephant in this ro= > om or might not - which is the possibility or otherwise of the RZM being IC= > ANN/IANA.<div><br></div><div>Without having discussed it with those who are= > actively working on these things, I think a line of business restriction o= > n ICANN or IANA from ever doing that job themselves should be part of the t= > ransition plan.</div><div><br></div><div>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)?<br><br></div><div>cheers</div><div>Jo=
> rdan</div><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D= > "gmail_quote">On 8 April 2015 at 10:05, David Conrad <span dir=3D"ltr"><= > <a href=3D"mailto:david.conrad at icann.org" target=3D"_blank">david.conrad at ic=
> ann.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D= > "margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style= > =3D"word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:13px;font-family:Calibr=
> i,sans-serif"><div>Milton,</div><span class=3D""><div><br></div><span><bloc=
> kquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT:#b5c4df 5 solid;PADDING:0 0 0 5;MARGIN:0 0 0 5"= > ><div><div lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple"><div><p class=3D"M= > soNormal"><span style=3D"color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-seri=
> f;font-size:11pt">David’s proposed principles are a nice starting poi= > nt but are quite generic and I don’t see the value of calling > for things like “accuracy” – no one will argue for inacc= > uracy and unless we can propose a framework that we believe improves accura= > cy, stability, etc. I am not sure of the value of such an exercise.</span><= > /p></div></div></div></blockquote></span><div><br></div></span><div>I had t= > hought the idea behind the framework was that it would come up with the mec= > hanisms by which the root management system could evolve, including s= > uch areas as accuracy, stability, etc., instead of having us come up with t= > hat evolution (in 3 days and counting). This isn't suggesting tha= > t 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.</di= > v><div><br></div><div>My understanding of the call for principles was to ma= > ke sure we were all on the same page with regards to what we wanted to addr= > ess 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 mi= > ght be helpful.</div><span class=3D""><div><br></div><span><blockquote styl= > e=3D"BORDER-LEFT:#b5c4df 5 solid;PADDING:0 0 0 5;MARGIN:0 0 0 5"><div><div = > lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple"><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><= > span style=3D"color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size=
> :11pt">I suggest that we continue working on this beyond the 4 days and sta= > rt adjusting our framework to the proposed model > that the CWG seems to be converging on.</span></p></div></div></div></bloc=
> kquote></span><div><br></div></span><div>A step before that would be to act= > ually have a framework, no?</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>-dr=
> c</div><div><br></div></div>
> <br>_______________________________________________<br>
> cwg-dtf mailing list<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:cwg-dtf at icann.org">cwg-dtf at icann.org</a><br>
> <a href=3D"https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dtf" target=3D"_blank"= > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dtf</a><br>
> <br></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div cla= > ss=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr">Jordan Carter= > <br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) |= > +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br><a href=3D"mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz" target= > =3D"_blank">jordan at internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>= > A better world through a better Internet </i><br><br></div></div></div=
> ></div>
> </div>
>
> --001a11473ba4d9250605132a1c38--
>
> --===============1755404656012062439==
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> _______________________________________________
> cwg-dtf mailing list
> cwg-dtf at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dtf
>
> --===============1755404656012062439==--
_______________________________________________
cwg-dtf mailing list
cwg-dtf at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dtf
More information about the cwg-dtf
mailing list