[CWG-RFP3] Coordination of Subgroup 3

[Seun Ojedeji]

I think Gomes has given a very vital reference here and i believe David has
also basically enumerated on the details in those references. @Kieren, it
will be unnecessary to go back to NTIA asking of what they want because
they had already indicated what they expect the proposal to look like.

Regards

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  What is it that is unknown in terms of what NTIA does?  I think it is
> pretty well laid out in the IANA functions contract and SAC067 and more
> recently summarized in the draft proposals for CWG RFP Sections 1 & 2A.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 05, 2014 12:18 PM
> *To:* Milton Mueller
> *Cc:* RFP3
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-RFP3] Coordination of Subgroup 3
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
> Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141105/2dd01d9a/attachment.html>