[CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review

[Alan Greenberg]

At 09/05/2016 11:31 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:


> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > 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.
>
>Do you mean names IANA? It will help the discussion stay focused if 
>you specify which IANA function you are talking about at all times.

I meant IANA, implying all IANA functions.


> > an authorization function in place for all
> > significant changes in IANA operations prior to the transition.
>
>This strikes me as a massive overstatement of what was intended.
>PTI will be in charge of names-IANA operations. It can change its 
>operations at will as long as it performs the functions its 
>customers want it to perform efficiently and effectively. The 
>Standing committee will continually monitor and review its 
>operations and it will be subject to IFRs.

The NTIA currently approves changes BEFORE they go into effect. DT-F 
was charged with deciding if such prior authorization was required 
and if so how to do it. The group decided that prior authorization 
WAS required for some classes of changes (and removed the need to 
authorization for others). The CWG approved that recommendation. Are 
you now suggesting that even if you believe that the RZERC is only 
for names, that we re-write the CWG report?


>The "significant changes" this committee was supposed to be 
>concerned with were those that went beyond names-IANA operations and 
>involved a need to coordinate with a number of other players: the 
>RZM, the root server operators, perhaps other IFOs.
>
>I agree with Chuck that this committee was never intended to 
>"approve" or "authorize" anything the way that NTIA "authorized" 
>root zone file changes. It was intended to provide a platform for 
>cooperation and coordination around major re-configurations of NAMES 
>root zone process.

The committee does not authorize. That task was given to the ICANN 
Board. Unrelated to the Board's responsibility for names policy. It 
simply seemed a good senior people to anoint with the responsibility. 
I do not recall and objections to this in DT-F or the CWG.

Alan