[DT-F] FW: For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Sep 29 22:07:51 UTC 2015
It's not in the CWG proposal. It is in the
ICANN/Verisign proposal (which the ICG makes
reference to in its first question).
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf.
Alan
At 29/09/2015 05:20 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Alan,
>
>Where is the Q&A found in the CWG proposal?
>
>Chuck
>
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 5:13 PM
>To: Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; CWG DT-F (cwg-dtf at icann.org)
>Subject: RE: [DT-F] FW: For your review - draft responses to ICG Questions
>
>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
>(<mailto:cwg-dtf at icann.org>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 IFOs 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
>havent 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
>Verisigns 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/cdee8f1c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the cwg-dtf
mailing list