<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Earlier, Jordan said:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font color="#0000ff">In the operation of the IANA functions and their stewardship, through to the root zone, there are currently three significant parties: the NTIA, ICANN and Verisign.</font></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font color="#0000ff"><br></font></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font color="#0000ff">With the end of the IANA Functions Contract and the CWG's emerging proposal to assign the stewardship responsibility to ICANN, this will reduce the parties involved to two.</font></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font color="#0000ff"><br></font></div><div style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">I believe this is not immediately true, though it may become so. It is my understanding that the Verisign Cooperative Agreement will stay in place for the time being, with amendments made to account for the ending of the IANA Functions Contract. I recognize that statements were made that the Cooperative Agreement/relationship would be the subject of a related, parallel transaction. However, it is my sense that this transition may well be "serial," rather than "parallel." </font></div><div style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg</font></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:44 AM, David Conrad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:david.conrad@icann.org" target="_blank">david.conrad@icann.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I won't bother arguing whether or not ICANN has the "skills and<br>
experience, the resources, and the need, to deliver the [Root Zone<br>
Maintainer] function" (hint: it isn't rocket science and ICANN already<br>
does). I will simply note that in many (most?) situations in which an<br>
operational infrastructure is considered important, there is a requirement<br>
for a "Two Person Rule" (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule</a>). For<br>
example, it would be cheaper, easier, and far simpler if there was a<br>
single person in nuclear missile silos able to launch the missiles, yet<br>
there is a requirement for two people with two keys to enable launch.<br>
<br>
Further, if you have two party controls (and you assume a base level of<br>
competence), it does not matter who performs the functions as long as they<br>
are different: the two parties provide checks to minimize the risk that<br>
either party has the ability to unilaterally either accidentally or<br>
maliciously "do the bad thing".<br>
<br>
It is true that it is not technically essential to have two party<br>
controls, nor is it the most efficient way of operating, however I<br>
personally believe it is appropriate in the context of the root zone. How<br>
that is actually implemented should be a topic for future discussion.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
-drc<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: CW Lists <<a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>><br>
Date: Friday, April 17, 2015 at 5:11 AM<br>
To: Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>><br>
Cc: CWG Mailing List <<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Several questions for DT-F<br>
<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">>Dear Alan, Dear CWG colleagues:<br>
><br>
>1. I think that it is not technically essential to have separate IANA and<br>
>RZM operators. It is visually preferable and in certain limiting cases<br>
>more secure, provided that an appropriately independent RZM operator can<br>
>be identified.<br>
><br>
> In any event, absent the NTIA contract, it would be entirely<br>
>inappropriate for any Registry or Registrar with a corporate interest in<br>
>the content of the Root Zone to become or remain RZM operator.<br>
><br>
>2. I agree with Alan's question. I have also been perplexed as to the<br>
>motives for the explicit and implicit attacks on IANA performance in the<br>
>CWG. If it not evidence-based, then Why?<br>
><br>
>CW<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>On 17 Apr 2015, at 04:01, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> 1.<br>
>><br>
>> Milton has asked (several times) WHY we want to ensure that the IANA<br>
>>Functions Operator and Root Zone Maintainer must be separate entities.<br>
>>The answers I have heard to date do not (in my mind, or presumably<br>
>>Milton's) really explain why the two-party solution is better. With the<br>
>>current architecture, most or all errors that Verisign could catch would<br>
>>also be catchable in a single-party implementation.<br>
>><br>
>> Can anyone provide either a general answer or specific scenarios where<br>
>>the two-party solution is better.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> 2.<br>
>><br>
>> 1.c.1 Says that we need to consider increasing robustness WITHIN IANA<br>
>>prior to the CWG proposal being submitted.<br>
>><br>
>> 1.c.2 Says we need to consider robustness everywhere (including within<br>
>>IANA) post transition.<br>
>><br>
>> I am not aware of the justification for 1.c.1 other than it was sort of<br>
>>implied by the transfer of tasks from DT-D. But since NTIA did not<br>
>>refuse authorizations and there are no known problems, it is not clear<br>
>>that this is an urgent matter.<br>
>><br>
>> Moreover I find it highly unlikely that a proper job of this could be<br>
>>done prior to transition if it occurs in 2015 or early 2016.<br>
>><br>
>> Do we want to keep it?<br>
>><br>
>> Alan<DT-F_Rec-v07.pdf>_______________________________________________<br>
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>