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

[Alan Greenberg]

Milton, you are correct that this requirement has 
not been satisfied. But the proposal is purely 
about the mechanism to have the NTI no longer 
authorizing changes at the moment of transition, 
and to do this with no coding changes in the RZ 
processes. I am attaching a brief analysis of the 
proposal and its impact (it is couched in less 
technical terms since it was aimed at a more general audience).

If there is any doubt that the proposal has this 
very limited intent, I am sure that David Conrad 
and/or someone from Verisign can confirm.

The CWG requirement that you are referring to is 
alluded to in two of the Q&As that accompany the proposal.

Q.  Will there be a new agreement to perform the 
RZM function post the IANA stewardship transition?
A.  Verisign performs the RZM function today, 
including multiple daily publications of the root 
zone file, under the Cooperative Agreement with 
the Department of Commerce.  It is anticipated 
that performance  of the RZM function would be 
conducted by Verisign under a new RZM agreement 
with ICANN once the RZM function obligations 
under the Cooperative Agreement are completed.

Q.  How will this impact the Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and Verisign?
A.  The Cooperative Agreement  between NTIA and 
Verisign will continue.  Once the parallel 
testing for root zone management has 
proven  capable of performance  in the absence of 
the RZA / NTIA role and the IANA Stewardship 
transition implemented,  NTIA and Verisign will 
amend  the Cooperative  Agreement  as appropriate.

The second Q/A implies that at transition, the 
requirement for Verisign to adhere to PTI directives is implied.

The first Q/A Implies that the Cooperative 
agreement will be replaced with a comparable 
agreement between ICANN and Verisign which would 
clearly include the needed requirement.

So these two questions overlap and it is unclear 
which path will be followed, or perhaps 
implemented in sequence, first a change to the 
Cooperative Agreement and later a replacement of it.

But regardless, it seems that the CWG requirement 
is contemplated prior to effecting transition.

Alan

At 29/09/2015 02:59 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>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] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 2:56 PM
>To: Gomes, Chuck; CWG DT-F (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: 
><mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>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: <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>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/20150929/1139bf4d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RZMS-Analysis.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 114825 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150929/1139bf4d/RZMS-Analysis-0001.pdf>