[CWG-Stewardship] Several questions for DT-F

[Greg Shatan]

Root Zone Manager = ICANN (presently)
Root Zone Maintainer = Verisign (presently)

Abbreviations can be ambiguous.  I don't think this attempt to clarify
usage for purposes of internal discussion is a sign of deeper or more
widespread confusion regarding the roles themselves.

Greg

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:35 AM, CW Lists <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
wrote:

> Dear Chuck:
>
> > Root Zone Manager and Maintainer ...
>
> For present purposes I do not recognise the difference. Someone, somewhere
> may be splitting hairs.
> If the (relative) cognoscenti are confused, imagine how this argument will
> travel later in public consultation and among the international community!
>
> Regarding the definition of RZM, I suggest that Verisign is better placed
> than I am to provide a reply.
> I imagine that we might be entering into another scholastic debate about
> the "Unit". I am not asking for that!
>
> More generally, for those of us brought up on the regulatory principle
> that critical infrastructure functions must not be under the control of the
> dominant operator, the NTIA arrangement with Verisign has always been
> rather shocking.
> The only saving grace being that the ICANN and NTIA contracts prevented
> abuse. Now that has to change, although I agree that change should be
> 'serial' and not 'parallel'.
>
> Regards
>
> CW
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Apr 2015, at 14:52, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> > Christopher,
> >
> > How do you define RZM?  Root Zone Manager or Root Zone Maintainer?  To
> avoid confusion in DT-M we used RZM for Root Zone Manager and Maintainer
> without an acronym.  For consistency in DT-F I encourage us to do the same.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of CW Lists
> > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 8:12 AM
> > To: Alan Greenberg
> > Cc: CWG IANA
> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Several questions for DT-F
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150417/559eb728/attachment-0001.html>