[CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 10:15:05PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> 
> MM: Sorry, Chuck I am not buying this. Insofar as we are talking about root zone management, we are talking about names. There is no "root zone" for numbers or protocols.
> 

While I think we agree about the limited remit of this committee, it's
also true that the whole Internet has a stake in the sorts of changes
it is supposed to be looking at.  In particular, I think all the OCs
are likely to have something relevant to say.  The canonical example
was DNSSEC signing of the root zone.  That doesn't just affect the DNS
root, because there are big consequences for number resources (because
of the reverse tree -- under arpa, of course, whose policy oversight
lives with the IAB, but still) and for the IETF (because if there are
problems with the protocol, that's where the changes are going to be
made, and if there are BCPs to be delivered that's where they're going
to have to be delivered).

Given that the whole thing just advises the Board and can be
reconstituted later if need be, I'm not too exercised about including
a reasonably wide group of people.  Also, of course, we should hope
that the sorts of innovations that might involve this group would be
relatively rare.  But, for instance, there's current work afoot to
rename all the root servers to give a little more room in the DNS
priming query; and I'd like to believe that we all think maximal
co-operation in making those sorts of changes is the sort of thing we
can count on.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com