[DT-F] Design Team F kickoff

[Gomes, Chuck]

David,

 

I for one would welcome your suggestions for improvements to the process.

 

Chuck

 

From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at icann.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 2:26 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: CWG DT-F
Subject: Re: [DT-F] Design Team F kickoff

 

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 doesn't
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 don't 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/20150409/90667da3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5909 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150409/90667da3/smime-0001.p7s>