[CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review

[Alan Greenberg]

At 08/05/2016 02:15 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

>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>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
><https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>ajs 
>at anvilwalrusden.com

I don't think it is issue of the Board saying no. 
The ICANN Board was put in that position because 
it was felt (within DT-F) that SOME entity had to 
have the Go/NoGo stamp, and the ICANN Board was 
as good or better than any other proposals at the 
time. The real issue is that whatever the 
proposal is, it has been vetted by people/groups 
that are the experts on the issue.

Currently NTIA passes judgement on pretty much 
EVERYTHING that IANA does, including details of 
what is on a report. The new authorization 
function (committee + Board) was to replace that, 
but only for the more substantive issues.

Alan


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160508/250c450f/attachment-0001.html>