[CWG-Stewardship] Several questions for DT-F

[Alan Greenberg]

Sorry, this should have gone to DT-F.

At 16/04/2015 10:01 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>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