[CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review

[Gomes, Chuck]

Alan,

Do you see the RZERC as having an authorization  role?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca] 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 10:38 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review

As I said in an earlier message, if the other communities want to set up a similar consultative group, it will make things more complex for the IANA folks, but sure, that could work.

However, as far as I know, to date there has never been a discussion about it, and in my mind, there MUST be an authorization function in place for all significant changes in IANA operations prior to the transition.

Alan

At 09/05/2016 10:05 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>I wonder if we should let the numbers and protocol communities decide 
>how they would like this to happen.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton 
>L
>Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 9:53 PM
>To: Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > 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.
>
>Yes, absolutely, any major change in the names RZ operations needs to 
>have input from numbers and the IETF. I have no problem with broader 
>inclusion within the committee.  I do, however, want to see the remit 
>of this committee clearly restricted to the names. It seemed to me from 
>the initial reading that there was still confusion about this (and 
>these concerns were amply borne out).
>
>--MM
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship