[DT-F] Meeting and draft proposal

[Milton L Mueller]

This is ok but I think this recommendation still needs a lot more discussion.
Is there precise meaning to the term "substantive changes" with respect to the root zone? Could we elaborate what we mean by that in more detail and with more precision?
As for the "new board committee" is this a standing "board" committee or a community committee that is called into existence when needed? If the latter who makes the call? We may not need to get that detailed and I certainly don't want to get bureaucratic but I do want to see if we have compatible conceptions of we think is supposed to happen.


From: cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 12:46 PM
To: CWG DT-F
Subject: [DT-F] Meeting and draft proposal

I have requested that a Doodle be sent out for a 90 minute meeting either late this week or early next week.

Here is a very rough draft proposal. At some point in discussions (perhaps in the CWG as a whole), it was suggested that the ICANN Board could be the authorization body, and I have taken that as as good a proposal as any, and tried to flesh it out.

Alan
=================

Draft Proposal to replace NTIA Administrative Oversight

Currently the NTIA is involved in virtually all changes to the architecture and implementation of the Root Zone (excluding those solely within individual Root Servers?) and all operational and procedural changes within IANA and the Root Zone Maintainer.

DT-F has recommended that such oversight is no longer required for day-to-day changes, but that oversight is still required for substantive changes.

Recommendation:

1.      Final approval over such changes will be given by the ICANN Board.

2.      Recommendations for such approval will be given by a new Board committee which shall be composed of:

        a.       One Board member, preferably with significant knowledge of the DNS as Chair
        b.       The senior IANA administrator or her/his delegate
        c.       The Chairs or their delegates of the SSAC, RSSAC and the IETF (IAB?)
        d.       A representative of a gTLD operator (named by?)
        e.       A representative of a ccTLD operator (named by?)
        f.       ??

3.      The above committee will involve other experts as dictated by the subject matter at hand.

4.      For major architectural changes, there should be wide public consultation

5.      Changes to the approval structure shall be deemed to be a substantive change and will require committee approval.

6.      To the extent allowed based the need for security and contractually required confidentiality, the proceedings of the committee should be open and transparent.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150513/562ca9fc/attachment-0001.html>