[CWG-RFP3] Coordination of Subgroup 3

[Kieren McCarthy]

So it strikes me that the obvious question is: let's ask the NTIA what it
does and ask it if it would have any concerns if the role simply
disappeared.



Kieren

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Milton Mueller <mueller.syr.edu at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I agree with David Conrad here. There is no need for the authorizer step.
>
> Milton L Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse School of Information Studies
>
> On Nov 4, 2014, at 13:05, David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
> On Nov 4, 2014, at 3:33 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> wrote:
>
> - RZF need to be reviewed for technical accuracy
>
>
> For clarification, currently, the IANA Function Operator (IFO) does not
> have access to the Root Zone File.  The Root Zone File is generated by
> Verisign prior to signing and distributing to the Root Server Operators (I
> believe -- I do not know the actual processes used by Verisign for sure,
> but I can make some educated guesses).
>
> What the IFO does does see is the specific change request prior to it
> being submitted to NTIA for authorization.  There are a number of technical
> checks performed by the IFO prior to allowing that change request to
> proceed.  I believe those technical checks are documented at
> https://www.iana.org/help/nameserver-requirements (more generally,
> https://www.iana.org/domains/root/help might be a useful resource).
>
> In the past Verisign also performed a set of technical checks (not exactly
> sure what they were).  I suspect, but do not know for certain, they
> continue to do those checks.
>
> - An authorizer process step exists now . In a post NTIA solution,
> something similar is needed.  There is a need to evaluate if a single or
> multiple authorizers are needed as well as cost that might entail.
>
>
> Speaking entirely personally, it isn't clear to me that an authorizer step
> is actually necessary since in practice, by the time the request gets to
> the authorizer, the affected parties are aware of the change and they'd
> have raised concerns if they had any. However whether an authorizer step is
> needed is, of course, for the community to decide.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
> (ICANN CTO, but speaking for myself only. Really.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
> Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141105/bc472e7d/attachment.html>