[CWG-Stewardship] verification function

[Greg Shatan]

Martin,

There currently is an authorization process.  The RFP requires us to
justify eliminating it.  As to concerns about gatekeeper functions and
delays -- if we were to carry on the role as defined currently (or even
more lightweight/automated), and define it clearly, wthat should seem to
control for the "slippery slope" concern.

On the other hand, we need to explore the extent to which the authorization
function is useful or helpful or worthwhile.  I don't assume it is worth
keeping just because it is there.

Finally, as a point of information, can you clarify what you mean by
jurisdictional concerns?

Greg

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
wrote:

>  And I for one am deeply suspicious of including an authorisation
> process.  It can only be on whether the process has been followed and the
> proposed changes are accurate:  wouldn’t it be best to confirm with the
> customer?
>
>
>
> My concern is that the authorisation process as is is entirely
> administrative.  I’d be unhappy with something that kept in place a role
> that may become a gatekeeper and could slow down a process.  I’d also note
> that there could be jurisdiction questions associated with this role.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* 11 February 2015 10:29
> *To:* Donna Austin
> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] verification function
>
>
>
> I believe "verification" was used as a synonym for what we have generally
> called "authorization" in our discussion of NTIA's role.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Donna Austin <
> Donna.Austin at ariservices.com> wrote:
>
> Avri
>
>
>
> The RYSG comments suggested a secondary verification step within the IANA
> Dept. Or an independent third party, which could be a professional audit
> company.
>
>
>
> Any verification would need to meet the same service levels attained now,
> or better.
>
>
>
> Donna
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Feb 11, 2015, at 10:14 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
> Sitting in the *IANA Department - Who, What, Why?* session.
>
> The question of who would perform the verification after NTIA no longer
> does it.
>
> Unless we assume that the function is not required, is this something that
> could just be farmed out to a professional audit company?
>
> avri
>
>   _______________________________________________
> 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/20150211/40a3ab5a/attachment.html>