[CWG-Stewardship] Proposed DT-F Section 4 on split management function

[Alan Greenberg]

At 21/04/2015 02:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Alan, thanks for the quick turnaround. But I think this misses the 
>mark in one way.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and
> > the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG is not recommending any change
> > to this operational relationship.
>
>Actually, we are; e.g., we propose modifying software to account for 
>absence of authorization function. We propose robustness studies, etc.
>
>What we are not doing is recommending any change in the _separation_ 
>between the IANA functions operator and the root zone maintainer role.
>
>Could we reword it to be more exact in this way? Here is a revised proposal:
>
>"Post transition there will only be the IANA Functions Operator and 
>the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG is not recommending any change in 
>the separation between the two at this time. The CWG is recommending 
>that should there be a proposal to combine the two or make other 
>changes in their respective roles in root zone modification, that it 
>be subject to wide community consultation."

Yes, of course we are talking about changes from the CURRENT 
operation, but I presumed that section 4 was not trying to overrule 
the previous paragraphs, so the "this operational relationship" was 
referring to the previous sentence saying there was now only IANA and 
the Maintainer.

However, for clarity, I can agree to what you are suggesting.

Alan