[CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3

[Greg Shatan]

This issue (who makes decisions about or approves "architectural changes to
the root system" in the absence of the NTIA) bears further review.  The CSC
doesn't seem like the right place at all.  The PTI Board makes some sense,
but only if we are not keeping it minimalist.  Could the NTIA role simply
disappear (as we propose to happen with the authorization/validation
function)?

Greg

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:14 AM, David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org>
wrote:

> Avri,
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> And I am not lumping them in with any policy decisions currently being
> made.  In fact that is the crux of my question: where will these decisions
> be made?  The PTI Board?  If so we should make sure it is reflected in the
> list.
>
>
> This is one of the things I've been a bit wound up about.  I've called it
> "architectural changes to the root system".
>
> Currently,my view is that that decision is made by NTIA, using processes
> known only to them (but which, from empirical evidence would appear to
> include consultation with technical experts at NIST and elsewhere).  I had
> thought a logical place would be the CSC via the creation of an ad hoc,
> technically knowledgable committee, but I gather my assumptions of the role
> of the CSC were in error. Personally, I don't care too much who makes the
> decision, just that the decision is made by folks who understand the issues
> and the process by which the decision is made is open, transparent,
> accountable, and well documented (and makes sense, of course).
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150422/d038c2d7/attachment.html>