[CWG-Stewardship] Several questions for DT-F

[CW Lists]

Dear Alan, Dear CWG  colleagues:

1.	I think that it is not technically essential to have separate IANA and RZM operators. It is visually preferable and in certain limiting cases more secure, provided that an appropriately independent RZM operator can be identified.

	In any event, absent the NTIA contract,  it would be entirely inappropriate for any Registry or Registrar with a corporate interest in the content of the Root Zone to become or remain RZM operator.

2.	I agree with Alan's question. I have also been perplexed as to the motives for the explicit and implicit attacks on IANA performance in the CWG. If it not evidence-based, then Why?

CW


	
On 17 Apr 2015, at 04:01, 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.
> 
> 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<DT-F_Rec-v07.pdf>_______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship