[DT-F] Design Team F kickoff

[David Conrad]

Chuck,

First, welcome to the Design Team.

From:  <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
Date:  Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 7:10 AM
To:  David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org>, Milton Mueller
<mueller.syr.edu at gmail.com>
Cc:  CWG DT-F <cwg-dtf at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [DT-F] Design Team F kickoff

> First of all let me say that I definitely agree with this:
> "power/responsibility to modify/update the root zone is not concentrated in a
> single entity".  To me that is just simple checks and balances.

Good to hear.

> Secondly, am I correct that the current system with NTIA involved doesn¹t deal
> with mistakes any differently than they would be dealt with when NTIA goes
> away, 

I thought the point of this Design Team was to actually define the
relationships post-NTIA.  Since the relationships post-NTIA are not defined,
it is difficult to predict how mistakes will be dealt with.

> I personally think that the technical checks that both the IANA operator and
> the Root Zone Maintainer do are very good.
> 
>  
> 
> So in my thinking, the kind of mistakes we may want to focus on are mistakes
> relating to policy implementation.  Is there a change to the process that
> would increase the chances of catching those before they are implemented
> without slowing down the process significantly?  I confess that I don¹t have a
> solution but I think that may be where we want to focus our attention with
> regard to mistakes.

While I have a number of ideas on how the root management processes can be
improved both from a policy and operational perspective, I am hesitant to
get into those discussions due to time constraints and limited participation
of directly involved stakeholders.  Instead, I have been trying to encourage
a focus on what we as the Design Team should recommend to the CWG in terms
of requirements/framework for the post-NTIA relationships, staying away from
specific implementation recommendations so as to not limit flexibility in
implementation.  The one requirement identified so far has been the above
limitation on power/responsibility concentration.  From your comments, I
suspect another requirement would be that the future relationships should
not significantly slow down root zone management processes. Would you agree?

Regards,
-drc



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150408/8387cad3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150408/8387cad3/smime-0001.p7s>