[DT-F] Draft of report to the CWG

[Milton L Mueller]

Alan and other DT-Fers

Good first effort. As you remark, it could be a lot more concise. 
I am not sure I can attend the call due to the ARIN meeting, so here is my reaction. 

I would propose to replace the sections 2 and 3 of the Recommendations with the following, much simpler, language:

2. In addition to implementing RZ modifications, a Post-Transition IANA (PTI) may on occasion be required to reconfigure the processes or technologies used to modify or manage the root zone. DNSSEC, the deployment of IPv6, and automated changes are examples. In the past, NTIA was involved in discussions related to these kinds of changes and was the entity that ultimately approved them. In the absence of the NTIA, PTI needs to have a governance structure or defined process able to develop and approve enhancements to the root zone. 

3. Further, PT-IANA budgets must not only address operational costs, but must support the capability to investigate, develop and deploy the type of Root Zone enhancements mentioned in #2.

(it would even be possible to collapse these two into one paragraph, imho.

It seems to me that in #1, #4 and #6 we are talking about a lot of closely interrelated stuff and I feel vaguely dissatisfied with it. 

The first paragraph could, in my opinion, be shortened to:

1. Post-transition, as per DT-D, there will no longer be a requirement for the NTIA to authorize all changes to the Root Zone.

a.	Changes will be required to the IANA Function Operator and Root Zone Maintainer software to remove this requirement. 

I would recommend striking your next statement, "In the very short term, IANA staff could take over this role of authorizing all changes." DT-D has already said there is no need for an authorization function, so IANA is not "taking it over."  

Section b. is pretty much ok as it is, imho

However, I wonder whether the question now in #6 should be placed immediately after 1.b. 
Further, I would like to raise this additional observation: If the exchange of info between IANA and RZM is completely automated and locked down, then the existence of a separate RZM adds no "second pair of eyes" or error-checking or robustness, does it? If we think separating or de-concentrating the process is good, we need to identify more precisely what we achieve by doing that. 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:06 PM
> To: CWG DT-F
> Subject: [DT-F] Draft of report to the CWG
> 
> This may not be in a final (or proper) format, and we will need to create a
> one-page version, but hopefully I have captured all of the content as
> discussed during our first call.
> 
> See you (hopefully all) in 2 hours.
> 
> Alan