[CWG-Stewardship] Several questions for DT-F

[Greg Shatan]

Chuck,

This goes back several weeks, so I'm trying to remember exactly how I got
here.  I'm not sure if it's information others do not have, or just
information that is buried in the morass.  I do remember that we had raised
the question of whether it was in scope for us to deal with the Cooperative
Agreement transition, and I recall getting various bits of information that
added up to the point I made.  We could always just ask NTIA what their
current thinking is on the subject.

Greg

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  Greg,
>
>
>
> You seem to have information that the rest of us do not have, or at least
> that I do not have.  I have no idea what NTIA is going to do with the
> Cooperative Agreement.  Where did your understanding come from?
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 11:02 AM
> *To:* David Conrad
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Several questions for DT-F
>
>
>
> Earlier, Jordan said:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> I believe this is not immediately true, though it may become so.  It is my
> understanding that the Verisign Cooperative Agreement will stay in place
> for the time being, with amendments made to account for the ending of the
> IANA Functions Contract.  I recognize that statements were made that the
> Cooperative Agreement/relationship would be the subject of a related,
> parallel transaction.  However, it is my sense that this transition may
> well be "serial," rather than "parallel."
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:44 AM, David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I won't bother arguing whether or not ICANN has the "skills and
> experience, the resources, and the need, to deliver the [Root Zone
> Maintainer] function" (hint: it isn't rocket science and ICANN already
> does). I will simply note that in many (most?) situations in which an
> operational infrastructure is considered important, there is a requirement
> for a "Two Person Rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule). For
> example, it would be cheaper, easier, and far simpler if there was a
> single person in nuclear missile silos able to launch the missiles, yet
> there is a requirement for two people with two keys to enable launch.
>
> Further, if you have two party controls (and you assume a base level of
> competence), it does not matter who performs the functions as long as they
> are different: the two parties provide checks to minimize the risk that
> either party has the ability to unilaterally either accidentally or
> maliciously "do the bad thing".
>
> It is true that it is not technically essential to have two party
> controls, nor is it the most efficient way of operating, however I
> personally believe it is appropriate in the context of the root zone.  How
> that is actually implemented should be a topic for future discussion.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CW Lists <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Date: Friday, April 17, 2015 at 5:11 AM
> To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Cc: CWG Mailing List <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> 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/20150417/916873a3/attachment.html>