[DT-F] FW: For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions

[Gomes, Chuck]

Thanks for the feedback Milton.

Let me start by recognizing my possible conflict of interest even though I have had no involvement at all in the Verisign/ICANN work in this area.  In fact, the first I saw of the ICANN/Verisign proposal was the link that was provided to the public.

That aside, can you provide the reference in the CWG proposal that requires there to be an agreement between the RZMaintainer and the IFO?  It would be helpful to add that to the document.

Chuck

From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 2:59 PM
To: Alan Greenberg; Gomes, Chuck; CWG DT-F (cwg-dtf at icann.org)
Subject: RE: [DT-F] FW: For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions

Alan, Chuck
I think the proposal does not meet one essential requirement of the DTF.
We called for an agreement between the RZMaintainer and the IANA Functions Operator to ensure that the IFO's changes would be implemented.
As far as I  can tell, that requirement is fudged in the ICANN-Verisign proposal.

--MM

From: cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 2:56 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; CWG DT-F (cwg-dtf at icann.org<mailto:cwg-dtf at icann.org>)
Subject: Re: [DT-F] FW: For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
Importance: High

To quote from an analysis I did for the ALAC Transition Support group:
The document is an implementation of the implied recommendation of Design Team F that nothing be changed in the RZMS code prior to or during transition. It follows the golden rule that you should make as few changes at the same time as possible.
In my mind, this proposal carried that rule to a ridiculous extreme.
I must say that the proposal calls for an lot of work and expense to avoid making a relatively simple coding change that could be verified seventeen ways to Sunday. But yes, it does meeting the CWG requirements.

Alan

At 29/09/2015 01:44 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
In case some of you fellow Design Team F members haven't had time to look at this document, I wanted to call to your particular attention questions 1 & 2 for which feedback is requested from DT-F members.  Feedback is requested before the CWG call this coming Thursday.

Alan - Because you led DT-F and carried a large part of the load, I think it would be especially helpful for you to provide your feedback.  Because both questions relate to Verisign's current role as Root Zone Maintainer, it is probably better if responses come from others instead of me.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 9:57 AM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions

Dear All,

In order to facilitate the development of responses to the ICG Questions, staff has, in co-ordination with the chairs, prepared the attached table which provides a draft response for a number of the ICG questions which is intended to serve as a starting point for CWG-Stewardship deliberations. Please review this document and share your feedback with the mailing list, if possible, prior to the CWG-Stewardship meeting on Thursday.

Thanks,

Marika
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150929/be0df150/attachment-0001.html>