[CWG-Stewardship] Several questions for DT-F

[Jordan Carter]

Hi all,

On 17 April 2015 at 14:01, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> 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.
>

In the operation of the IANA functions and their stewardship, through to
the root zone, there are currently three significant parties: the NTIA,
ICANN and Verisign.

With the end of the IANA Functions Contract and the CWG's emerging proposal
to assign the stewardship responsibility to ICANN, this will reduce the
parties involved to two.

If there is not a line of business restriction placed on ICANN to prevent
it also being the Root Zone Maintainer, there are two consequences:

- pressure that could emerge over time, from whatever source, for ICANN to
develop another portfolio of activity that would divert attention,
resources, focus from its core activity

- the concentration of the entire responsibility for operating the root in
one entity.

I do not believe ICANN or the IANA functions department within it have the
skills and experience, the resources and the need, to deliver the RZM
functions.

I do not believe that them developing this capability is required by
ICANN's core role.

Even if I could be persuaded on that point, the notion that we should go
from three different entities with three different webs of constituency,
degrees of power, and expertise (ICANN, NTIA and Verisign) to ONE, is
inevitably and totally a future threat to the security and stability of the
root.

It would be fundamentally irresponsible to allow such a situation to
emerge, in my opinion.


best,
Jordan




>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150417/c0de2ccb/attachment.html>