[CWG-Stewardship] Several questions for DT-F

[Alan Greenberg]

1.

Milton has asked (several times) WHY we want to ensure that the IANA 
Functions Operator and Root Zone Maintainer must be separate 
entities. The answers I have heard to date do not (in my mind, or 
presumably Milton's) really explain why the two-party solution is 
better. With the current architecture, most or all errors that 
Verisign could catch would also be catchable in a single-party implementation.

Can anyone provide either a general answer or specific scenarios 
where the two-party solution is better.


2.

1.c.1 Says that we need to consider increasing robustness WITHIN IANA 
prior to the CWG proposal being submitted.

1.c.2 Says we need to consider robustness everywhere (including 
within IANA) post transition.

I am not aware of the justification for 1.c.1 other than it was sort 
of implied by the transfer of tasks from DT-D. But since NTIA did not 
refuse authorizations and there are no known problems, it is not 
clear that this is an urgent matter.

Moreover I find it highly unlikely that a proper job of this could be 
done prior to transition if it occurs in 2015 or early 2016.

Do we want to keep it?

Alan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DT-F_Rec-v07.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 107752 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150416/9e1ec724/DT-F_Rec-v07-0001.pdf>