[DT-F] URGENT: Several questions for DT-F

[Gomes, Chuck]

Alan,

I think Jordan provided a response to item 1.  I also responded to this on our DT-F list a couple days ago but apparently it was missed: Separating the functions into two separate entities provides better checks and balances than could be done if it was in a single organization.    If there are any serious problems in one of the organizations, there would be another organization that would not be impacted by those problems.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 11:16 PM
To: CWG DT-F
Subject: [DT-F] URGENT: Several questions for DT-F
Importance: High

The revised text is due at 17:00 UTC on Friday. Quick replies appreciated


1.

Milton has asked (several times) WHY we want to ensure that the IANA Functions Operator and Root Zone Maintainer must be separate entities. The answers I have heard to date do not (in my mind, or presumably Milton's) really explain why the two-party solution is better. With the current architecture, most or all errors that Verisign could catch would also be catchable in a single-party implementation.

Can anyone provide either a general answer or specific scenarios where the two-party solution is better.


2.

1.c.1 Says that we need to consider increasing robustness WITHIN IANA 
prior to the CWG proposal being submitted.

1.c.2 Says we need to consider robustness everywhere (including 
within IANA) post transition.

I am not aware of the justification for 1.c.1 other than it was sort 
of implied by the transfer of tasks from DT-D. But since NTIA did not 
refuse authorizations and there are no known problems, it is not 
clear that this is an urgent matter.

Moreover I find it highly unlikely that a proper job of this could be 
done prior to transition if it occurs in 2015 or early 2016.

Do we want to keep it?

Alan