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

[Alan Greenberg]

Not sure it really matters.

Milton has identified a CWG requirement that has 
slipped through the cracks. The ICG should have 
directed a question to the NTIA about how this requirement would be satisfied.

My only point was that the ICANN/Versign proposal 
was on another unrelated subject and I used the 
Q/A to demonstrate (at least from my perspective) 
why is was orthogonal to the ICANN/Verisign proposal.

Alan

At 29/09/2015 05:07 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>I have a higher level question:  Is it 
>appropriate for us to be referring to CWG 
>proposal requirements that are implied in proposal Q&A?
>
>Chuck
>
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:56 PM
>To: Mueller, Milton L; Gomes, Chuck; CWG DT-F (cwg-dtf at icann.org)
>Subject: RE: [DT-F] FW: For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
>
>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: 
><mailto:cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org>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 (<mailto:cwg-dtf at icann.org>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/20150929/8164d541/attachment.html>