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

[Suzanne Woolf]

On Apr 17, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Suzanne
> I have to agree with David here and disagree with you. Basically it comes down to this part, where I think you commit a fallacy:
> 
>> analysis.) I have a strong opinion that the current system does work
>> quite well, from multiple perspectives, and that for now, we should
>> limit ourselves as much as we can to changes that will assure the
>> system is no weaker post-transition than it is today.
> 
> People keep saying that they think the current system works well and keep forgetting that the current system goes away. 
> The current system includes a cooperative agreement with Verisign that puts the USG in control of RZ content and thus _must_ end, and also includes an NTIA which not only authorizes RZ changes but holds contractual power over ICANN to perform the IANA functions. That will go away. 
> 
> So that idea that post-Verisign CA, post NTIA authorization, and post-NTIA contracting for the IANA functions, we have "the same" system seems obviously out of place and not helpful to me. Am I missing something? 

Yes. 

An argument for "minimal change" is not an argument for "no change." (I'm as aware as anyone that keeping the current system "the same" isn't possible.)

We're disagreeing over how much change to seek, possibly when, and on what basis. 

One possible way to characterize the difference is that I'm advocating we start with what we have and change as little as possible, consistent with a goal of not weakening the post-NTIA system from what we have now (i.e. meeting the same requirements the system meets today). If I understand correctly, you're advocating that we add a new requirement for the post-NTIA system (a real two-party rule). David and I agreed that's not historically been a requirement before and isn't a characteristic of the system now. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, or even that I oppose it. It does mean it's a new attribute we'd be trying to add to the post-NTIA system.

I can understand an argument that "As long as we're changing things, this is a good thing to change."

I've perhaps misunderstood how you want to position this particular goal-- I think my main reservation is about making it a requirement of the transition.

> We are talking about a new arrangement. Further, as David points out, the current system doesn't really have 2-party authorization and even now can actually result in arbitrary changes to the RZ, and without the CA, that seems more serious to me that now, when Verisign is under CA
> 
> So I think we _should_ recommend some kind of a two-party arrangement. In response to this concern:
> 
>> I don't like to constrain future decisions unnecessarily
> 
> I think we can make that recommendation at the principle level in a way that is not so constraining.

I suspect this is true. I'm more concerned about being able to run the analysis and come up with new process that we're sure of, all as part of the transition. 

As I said, however, I'm not willing to stand against consensus on this. I'd be particularly happy to hear from some of the directly affected parties on it during the comment period.


best,
Suzanne