[CWG-RFP3] Coordination of Subgroup 3

Mon Nov 17 19:14:30 UTC 2014

Kieren – thanks for following up on this.  I think that it would be very useful to have the checklist.  Does the request have to come from someone else or will that give it to you on behalf of Subgroup 3?  While you are at it, could you get a bit more information on why the plan to automate more of the process was not completed?  I think that both of these will be quite important for our discussions in Frankfurt.

Cheers

Allan

From: cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Olawale Bakare
Sent: November-16-14 11:49 AM
To: Kieren McCarthy
Cc: RFP3
Subject: Re: [CWG-RFP3] Coordination of Subgroup 3

Hi,
Thank you for the update.  My comments are red inked inline

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com<mailto:kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>> wrote:
Hello all,

So I spoke briefly and informally with the NTIA about its Administrator role. Here's what I found out:

* The NTIA uses a checklist for IANA requests. It goes through the checklist, if all is good, it is approved. The NTIA will provide that checklist if this group asks for it.

* There are 3-4 people at the NTIA that will go through IANA requests. Typically it is whoever picks it up first, which often relates to how busy they are individually. (What this says to me is that it does not require specialist knowledge to do the job.)

   Are they working on the checklist daily?

* There was at one point a plan to automate much of the process but for a variety of everyday reasons, it hasn't happened yet. (What this says to me is: here is a place for further improvement in the IANA process and that it may be possible to remove the NTIA role altogether if the job they do is introduced into the process transparently i.e. anyone can see that a check was done and what the results of that check were, for every request.)

   I think, this would help making multi-stakeholderism approach to arriving at an agreed composition of OPRC of Strawman 1 as well structuring its functions to capturing each of the expected participating stakeholder in the oversight council ( OPRC).

Hope this is helpful in deliberations.

Kieren

  Regards,
 Wale

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
Getting information NTIA, in its role as Administrator, what it does and how it does it, from their perspective as Administrator (as opposed to IANA's or SSAC's perspective), seems like a good idea.  This should be about getting pragmatic details in addition to what we can read on paper in the IANA Contract, SSAC67, etc.

That does not mean speaking to NTIA, in its role as steward and recipient/arbiter of the transition process/result, about particular proposals.  That does not seem like a good idea.

Seeking this information does not mean that we are seeking to replicate, or replace on a one-to-one basis, NTIA's execution of the Administrator role.  But the more information we have about where we are, the better off we are in determining exactly where we're going.

Greg

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
Thanks Kieren.  I now understand the basis of your suggestion.

Chuck

From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kieren at kierenmccarthy.com<mailto:kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 2:42 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Milton Mueller; RFP3

Subject: Re: [CWG-RFP3] Coordination of Subgroup 3

It's hard to know what you don't know. Which is why I think it makes sense to ask.

The NTIA has been doing this job for a long time. It is possible that over the past decade the system has got so good and that the NTIA's focus has been on making sure it has the most minimal job possible that it would barely be noticed if the role was removed.

It is equally possible that it has built a series of internal guidelines - some may not even be written down - where particular requests are sent through different checks that the other parties are not even aware of (and why should they be?)

I've not seen any logs of transactions between IANA and the NTIA beyond cumulative statistics. We are told that the NTIA has never turned down an IANA change but is it the case that it has never got back to IANA and asked a clarifying question? Has IANA ever changed a request / got back to the requestor following NTIA feedback? We don't have that information.

What is the time differential between IANA sending a request and the NTIA approving it? It is minutes? Days? Does it vary? Are there particular requests that take longer? We don't know. What does it do with the requests? We don't know.

According to SAC067, the Administrator role is "solely with respect to whether or not ICANN has followed established policies and procedures". How does it do that? Does it have a book of rules in house? Does it ever call the requestors directly? What, if anything, is a red flag to the NTIA?

Does it feel that the role it plays should be retained even when it is no longer the NTIA doing it? If so, why?

By not even asking the NTIA we are making the best possible assumption about its Administrator role. Making sure we're not missing anything by simply asking would strike me as simple due diligence.

Of course, you can turn the question around the other way: what reason would we have to *not* ask the NTIA about its role?

Kieren

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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>> wrote:
Robert,

On Nov 4, 2014, at 3:33 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org<mailto: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<mailto:Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3

_______________________________________________
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org<mailto:Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3

_______________________________________________
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org<mailto: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/20141117/4b986052/attachment-0001.html>