[CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review

[Mueller, Milton L]

> -----Original Message-----
> 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?

Andrew has hit the nail on the head. Any major reconfiguration of IANA functions outside of names would not be the responsibility of an ICANN/names community based committee. It would involve contractual agreements among three autonomous communities, of which names would be only one. 

ICANN and the names community DO need a committee like this to consider major operational changes in the management of the names root zone. Since the names root is one of the most demanding and high-stakes IANA functions, it is best to let this committee focus on that. And in fact, all of the references and examples we used when calling for the creation of this committee were based on NAMES. No one ever suggested that it would have the authority to reconfigure all the IANA functions. I am not even sure what such a configuration would consist of. Anything I can imagine would involve IETF-level changes in standards - not something we want ICANN involved in. I am deeply surprised that such a proposition can even be taken seriously at this stage of the game.

Let's please amend the proposal to make it clear that this committee is all about names. 



> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship