[CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 01:32:57PM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> Although it is responsible for overseeing the architecture of the Root Zone,
> it is also responsible for significant operational changes in regard to all
> IANA functions

I'm not sure I agree.  The justification for this committee is at ¶154
ff in the CWG proposal
(https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53779816),
but the text is not perfectly clear.  It recommends that "a
replacement of this approval function be put in place for significant
architectural and operational changes."  The antecedent of "this" is
apparently in the prior paragraph (153), which includes changes to the
root zone "environment" (with DNSSEC as an example) "as well as many
classes of changes to IANA Functions Operator processes (including
what may be published)".  That's the only example given, however, and
it's hard to know what to make of this claim.

I well recall the discussion about how DNSSEC was implemented.  I'm
having a hard time imagining the kind of operational change where, if
an operational community wanted it, the Board would be in a position
to say no.  For the OC in question would surely terminate and take
their IANA function elsewhere in that case, no?

Best regards,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com