[DT-F] Design Team F kickoff

[Alan Greenberg]

At 08/04/2015 11:34 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>Milton,
>
>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.
>
>
>Perhaps the discontinuity here is that I'm looking at this from an 
>operational perspective and I gather you're looking at it from a 
>policy perspective. Operationally, I don't see the difference.
>
>MM: The difference is not operational, it is about the incentives of 
>the organizational actor that runs the operations.
>As you probably know, organizational incentives trump operational 
>procedures. But this is a secondary issue at this time.
>
>In both cases, it would seem to me there is a single entity that has 
>ultimate control over what gets published in the root zone.  In both 
>cases, if that single entity were to go rogue or make a mistake, 
>there would (presumably) be accountability mechanisms to slap them 
>after the fact.  However, in both cases, the damage would already be 
>done: an out-of-policy zone change would have been made. This seems 
>sub-optimal to me.
>
>MM: We agree on this.
>
>In any event, this is somewhat moot as I'm not aware of anyone 
>suggesting the IANA Function Operator and the Root Zone Maintainer 
>actually be merged, regardless of how scary it might or might not be.
>
>MM: We don't know. The NTIA-led RZ Maintainer transition process is 
>entirely untransparent. But again, we can leave this aside for now
>
>What I'm trying to get at is a framework that is applicable to 
>derive operational relationships acceptable to the community in the 
>post-NTIA future.  I'll point out again that "Checks and balances 
>between the IANA Function Operator and Root Zone Maintainer roles 
>are largely implemented via contractual obligations with the Root 
>Zone Administrator." Regardless of the form of the outcome of the 
>transition, the Root Zone Administrator role is going away, thus I 
>believe there will need to be some framework to define the 
>relationship between the entities that provide the IANA Functions 
>and the Root Zone Maintainer (however those functions are 
>partitioned and the entities that provide those functions are structured).
>
>MM: Totally agree.
>
>As a first attempt to come up with part of that framework, do you 
>disagree with the my rephrasing of the requirement Jordan proposed:
>
>"power/responsibility to modify/update the root zone is not 
>concentrated in a single entity"?
>
>MM: No problem with it.
>
>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.
>
>
>My understanding is that the deadline is April 10 and I'm still 
>unclear whether the participants in this Design Team are 
>sufficiently representative of the impacted stakeholder community to 
>fully consider the issues.
>
>MM: Well, as you may know I spoke up on the last CWG call on this 
>issue and seem to have succeeded in bringing Chuck and possibly also 
>Suzanne Wolf into the DT. As for the deadline, if as you say we 
>don't have sufficient participation/expertise on the group yet it 
>reinforces my tendency to not take April 10 deadline seriously.

Suzanne is in the DT and on this list.

We will certainly not have much signed sealed and delivered in the 
next two days. I have been tied up on conference calls most of the 
last several days, but will try to summarize where we are an possibly 
propose what to do relatively early tomorrow.

If you have the names of others to invite, please let me know and I will do so.

Alan

>
>
>_______________________________________________
>cwg-dtf mailing list
>cwg-dtf at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dtf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150408/18ed9cb4/attachment-0001.html>