[CWG-Stewardship] verification function

Wed Feb 11 07:31:04 UTC 2015

I agree with Martin. The rationale for eliminating it is that it is primarily a customer-service supplier relationship and interjecting a third party adds nothing of value, potentially introduces delay or intervention, and is nothing more than a legacy of the USG’s desire to maintain control of the contents of the root zone.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:19 AM
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] verification function

Greg,

That it is there currently is probably more an historical legacy from when communications were predominantly paper.  It might also have provided an element of immunity to the IANA functions operator in case of error.

In response to your question:  to many the process of authorisation has been seen as a mystery activity (even though the NTIA did keep telling people that it was purely an administrative check).  For the USG to have a final say over changes to a ccTLD’s entry was seen as a threat over national sovereignty decisions.  (Result:  art 63 of the WSIS Tunis Agenda.)  Making that decision the role of a US Counsel (or a counsel based in a foreign country) introduces a new and third party in a straight customer-supplier transaction.

Hence why I suggest that if checking the change before it is carried out would be best the role of the customer.

In Frankfurt, no one really argued for retention.  We need to ask ourselves why we should keep the role, and if we do not have any strong reasons to keep it, why overlay another process?  Reason for not including might then simply be, we do not think that the process is needed.

Avri earlier in the discussion quoted Saint-Exupéry (from his book “Terre des Hommes”:  “Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher”):  “[it appears that] he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

Best

Martin

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: 11 February 2015 13:39
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: Donna Austin; cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] verification function

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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto: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/20150211/7db55ca1/attachment-0001.html>