[CWG-RFP3] Coordination of Subgroup 3

Thu Nov 6 19:22:03 UTC 2014

You should emphasize that it is your Item #3 via which the NTIA maintains
the direct causal accountability relationship with ICANN.

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> On that note i also agree but with the caveat that this "extra
> information" requested (which we already seem to have an idea) should not
> tie down this sub-group in making progress. The process to asking NTIA
> questions about their role may not be as straight-forward like asking the
> Operator and the Maintainer. I also think that their are basically 3 things
> the NTIA does:
>
> 1- Right to move IANA to another operator (which is the major role)
> 2- Authorising root changes (which is procedural)
> 3- Indicate to the IANA operator how to manage the functions (which
> basically indicate the extent of community involvement required)
>
> Item 1 and 3 is absolutely clear and does not seem to need further
> questioning...wrong? (as i believe the contract document is a good
> reference for that). Item 2 also have some documentation already but the
> practical processes is what i sense is being asked which i believe we could
> get to response to if we ask the Operator and the Maintainer since NTIA is
> only in the middle of all these. It will be easier for the Operator to tell
> us what they send to NTIA and the maintainer to tell us what it receives
> from NTIA which would help determine what is done in the middle.
>
> As a background information; I remember how long it took before NTIA
> released official statement of whether it is ICG or ICANN that submits the
> final proposal. We should try as much as possible to avoid those
> bureaucracy especially if we can easily get those info via other means.
>
> My few Cents
>
> Thanks
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> Perhaps I am being simplistic, but having more information never really
>> hurts, does it?
>>
>> If we learn it is as we thought.  Great!
>> If we learn even one wrinkle that or complicating factor we did not know
>> about, all the better?
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 06-Nov-14 05:07, Donna Austin 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.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Donna
>>
>> [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA 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<mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com> <donna.austin at ariservices.com>
>> W  www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> <http://www.ariservices.com/>
>>
>> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> <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 <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> [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
>>
>> [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA 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<mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com> <donna.austin at ariservices.com>
>> W  www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> <http://www.ariservices.com/>
>>
>> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> <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> [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<mailto:mueller.syr.edu at gmail.com> <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<mailto:david.conrad at icann.org> <david.conrad at icann.org>> wrote:
>> Robert,
>>
>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 3:33 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org<mailto:rguerra at privaterra.org> <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 listCwg-rfp3 at icann.org<mailto:Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org> <Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cwg-rfp3 mailing listCwg-rfp3 at icann.orghttps://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 !
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141106/88fe9496/attachment.html>