[CWG-Stewardship] Several questions for DT-F

[Seun Ojedeji]

Well technically that definition is valid assuming ICANN is the only
"technical" source for root update and if verisign has no write privileges.
The current situation is that the maintainer may as well manage
(un-authoritatively) if he wants.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 17 Apr 2015 16:53, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150417/274e5809/attachment.html>