<html>
<body>
Certainly we need to do that.<br><br>
I have done a VERY brief review of the proposal. It seems to be in line
with what DT-F proposed, and in fact is very similar to a proposal that
DT-F considered, but ultimately put into the recommendation as something
that could be considered post-transition to increase the robustness of
the process.<br><br>
I have no knowledge of the process followed other than as described in
the blog post, it was developed jointly by ICANN and Verisign. I cannot
imagine that this was done without the involvement of the ICANN CTO, who
was also working with DT-F.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 18/08/2015 06:47 AM, James Gannon wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I think the CWG should do an
assessment again the proposal for RZM to make sure that it doesn’t
impact any of our work or require any substantive changes, my initial
read indicates only one small change with regards to the RZM
Authorisation step being removed, the proposal suggests replacing it with
an authentication step by PTI which I would suggest is a prudent approach
that the CWG should endorse. But I think a methodical analysis
shouldn’t take long and would be good due diligence on our part.
<br><br>
-James Gannon<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On 18 Aug 2015, at 08:31, Seun
Ojedeji
<<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf">
proposal</a></blockquote><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>