[CWG-RFP3] Coordination of Subgroup 3

Wed Nov 5 20:21:17 UTC 2014

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>
wrote:

>  Milton
>
>
>
> I agree with you, NTIA would not have announced transition if they had
> concerns, but I do agree with Kieren that we need to know what NTIA does.
>
>
>
> As a former bureaucrat, I am very conscious that NTIA would most likely
> have built in layers of administrative processes and guidelines as Kieren
> suggests in his most recent email. I think it’s important we understand
> what those are.
>

Now its looking like we just want to replicate the approach NTIA is using
which i don't think should be our goal. The RFP1,2A,2B (and C?) plus the
other relevant SSAC documents has all the information we need to know about
the role of NTIA. Unless we want to start asking things like the following:

- What communication media does the authorisation request go through
- Who are the staff of NTIA involved in the authorisation process
- What are their ranks
....etc

All of which IMHO will not help in this transition discussion. The more we
think about replicating what the NTIA does, the likelihood of loosing focus
of transitioning to a multi-stakeholder setup

Cheers!

>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Donna
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA AUSTIN*
> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
>
>
>
> *ARI REGISTRY SERVICES*
> Melbourne *|* Los Angeles
> *P*  +1 310 890 9655
> *P*  +61 3 9866 3710
> *E*  donna.austin at ariservices.com
> *W*  www.ariservices.com
>
>
>
> *Follow us on **Twitter* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
>
>
>
> *The information contained in this communication is intended for the named
> recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally
> privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended
> recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance
> on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all
> copies from your system and notify us immediately.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 5 November 2014 11:51 AM
> *To:* Donna Austin; 'Kieren McCarthy'; 'Milton Mueller'
> *Cc:* 'RFP3'
> *Subject:* RE: [CWG-RFP3] Coordination of Subgroup 3
>
>
>
> Donna:
>
> Asking NTIA what it does is one thing. (Anyone who wants to can do that.)
>
> Asking NTIA “if it would have any concerns” about any particular
> transition proposal, which Kieren also proposed, is not something we should
> do. It betrays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of this process,
> imho.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Donna Austin
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 5, 2014 2:38 PM
> *To:* Kieren McCarthy; Milton Mueller
> *Cc:* RFP3
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-RFP3] Coordination of Subgroup 3
>
>
>
> I think there is value in understanding what NTIA does, and having them
> inform us of the those details would have value. I appreciate David
> Conrad’s expertise in this area, but from an administrative and potentially
> replicative perspective, I support Kieren’s suggestion that we ask “NTIA
> what it does”.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Donna
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA AUSTIN*
> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
>
>
>
> *ARI REGISTRY SERVICES*
> Melbourne *|* Los Angeles
> *P*  +1 310 890 9655
> *P*  +61 3 9866 3710
> *E*  donna.austin at ariservices.com
> *W*  www.ariservices.com
>
>
>
> *Follow us on **Twitter* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
>
>
>
> *The information contained in this communication is intended for the named
> recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally
> privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended
> recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance
> on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all
> copies from your system and notify us immediately.*
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org
> <cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 5 November 2014 9:18 AM
> *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/20141105/1fba0e2f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141105/1fba0e2f/image001-0001.png>