<html>
<body>
Seun, we will have to disagree on this then.<br><br>
The proposal itself is neither consistent nor inconsistent with those
sections of the DT-F proposal, because it is silent on them. The proposal
is only addressing the mechanics of the testing and phasing out of the
NTI authorization. It is am alternative methodology to section
1a.<br><br>
However, the Questions and Answers that follow the proposal do privide
some idea of how the issues raised in 1b may play out. <br><br>
Section 1.b.i talks about what will happen if the NTIA is still tied to
Verisign under the Cooperative Agreement past the actual moment of
transition, and says there will need to be an amendment of that
Cooperative Agreement. The answer to <b>"Q. How will this impact the
Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and Verisign?"</b> mentions just
such an amendment.<br><br>
Section 1.b.ii talks about what will happen should the NTIA-Verisign
Cooperative agreement be dissolved at the point of transition. It is not
obvious that this will happen at that point or even later, but the answer
to <b>"Q. How will this impact the Cooperative Agreement between
NTIA and Verisign?"</b> alludes to such a replacement. <br><br>
For the record, although the general understanding of the March 2014
announcement and in particular the associated Q/A
(<a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ" eudora="autourl">
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ</a>
) alludes to the phase-out of the NTIA-Verisign Cooperative
Agreement:<br><br><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>Q. What impact does this announcement have on the cooperative
agreement with Verisign?<br>
<dd>A. Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably
intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative
root zone file management), which would require that NTIA coordinate a
related and parallel transition in these responsibilities.</blockquote>
</dl>That does not actually SAY that the cooperative agreement will be
phased out, only that the RESPONSIBILITIES under the agreement will be
transitioned. Perhaps the NTIA plans to keep the Cooperative Agreement in
some form for some period of time. I have no idea. The reference in the
most recent questions to a new ICANN-Verisign agreement seems to imply
that it will be replaced at some point.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<br>
At 23/08/2015 02:34 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi Alan,<br><br>
Unless there is another document/process to expect, I don't think the
proposal is entirely consistent with Section b (i and ii) of DT-F report
which specifically indicates what is expected of the agreement.<br><br>
From my readings, It seem the proposal attempts to address bii of DT-F
which means the RZM transition will be completed by/before stewardship
transition (all hopefully within next year). Doing that however will not
have addressed item b of DT-F which has to do with the agreement between
the Verisign and NTIA.<br>
<br>
So I don't think we should say the proposal is generally consistent with
DT-F as IMO the agreement would be the major piece in the RZM
transition.<br><br>
Regards<br>
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
The proposal pointed to by the NTIA Blog entry (and by Milton's piece) is
an implementation of the recommendation of the CWG and DT-F. But carried
to an extreme. It allows the transition to occur with no code
changes and virtually no changes in procedure other than those which will
be well tested prior to the transition.<br><br>
I think that the temporary cloning of the entire RZMS is a rather extreme
measure to avoid making coding or operational changes at the moment of
transition, but it *IS* following the sound engineering practice of
minimizing concurrent changes, and specifically ones that cannot be fully
tested prior to the moment of transition. If it had been me, I would have
developed the revised code and used the cloned system to test
THAT....<br><br>
As far as I can tell, this proposal has nothing to do with the
relationship of the NTIA and Verisign and their cooperative agreement
(other than altering the mechanics of what is done under the agreement).
<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 22/08/2015 10:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi,<br><br>
Just to mention that Milton wrote an interesting blog post summary about
this proposal:<br><br>
<a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/18/whats-going-on-between-ntia-icann-and-verisign/">
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/18/whats-going-on-between-ntia-icann-and-verisign/</a>
<br><br>
Inline with determining consistency with what DT-F proposed, it will be
good to ask the question of whether the proposal shared by Larry will
ultimately remove the administrative role NTIA. The current wording in
the proposal does not make that clear and I think that would indeed
determine if we are really done with stewardship transition or just
scratching the surface.<br><br>
Regards<br>
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 18 Aug 2015 08:31, "Seun Ojedeji"
<<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>Hello,<br>
<dd>Larry has just posted an update on the IANA transition and extension
of ICANN contract. An item of the update is the proposal that addresses
the administrative(middleman) role of NTIA in the update of the root.
Although the CWG did not address this in its proposal due to scope, it
highlights some high level principles (expectations) on this. It may be
good to check if the ICANN/Verisign proposal meets such expectations.
<br>
<dd>Regards<br>
<br><br>
<dd><a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition">
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition</a><br>
<br><br>
<dd><h1><b>An Update on the IANA Transition</b></h1><br>
<br>
<dd>August 17, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling<br><br>
<dd>The Internet̢۪s global multistakeholder communityity has made
tremendous progress in its work to develop a proposal to transition the
historic stewardship role NTIA has played related to Internet’s
domain name system (DNS).<br>
<dd>When we
<a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions">
announced</a> our intent in March 2014 to complete the privatization of
the DNS, we noted that the base period of our contract with ICANN to
perform technical functions related to the DNS, known as the IANA
functions, expired on September 30, 2015. However, it has become
increasingly apparent over the last few months that the community needs
time to complete its work, have the plan reviewed by the U.S. Government
and then implement it if it is approved.<br>
<dd>Accordingly, in May we asked the groups developing the transition
documents how long it would take to finish and implement their
proposals. After factoring in time for public comment, U.S.
Government evaluation and implementation of the proposals, the community
estimated it could take until at least September 2016 to complete this
process. In response to their feedback, we informed Congress on Friday
that we plan to extend our IANA contract with ICANN for one year to
September 30, 2016. Beyond 2016, we have options to extend the contract
for up to three additional years if needed.<br>
<dd>This one-year extension will provide the community with the time it
needs to finish its work. The groups are already far along in planning
the IANA transition and are currently taking comments on their IANA
transition proposals. As we indicated in a recent
<a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iana_transition_comment_notice_08102015.pdf">
Federal Register notice</a>, we encourage all interested stakeholders to
engage and weigh in on the proposals.<br>
<dd>In preparation for the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship
transition, NTIA also asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal
detailing how best to remove NTIA̢۪s administrative re role associated
with root zone management, which the groups working on the transition
were not asked to address. We asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a
proposal detailing how best to do this in a manner that maintains the
security, stability and resiliency of the DNS. Under the current root
zone management system, Verisign edits and distributes the root zone file
after it has received authorization to do so from NTIA. Verisign and
ICANN have developed a
<a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf">
proposal</a> that outlines a technical plan and testing regime for
phasing out the largely clerical role NTIA currently plays in this
process. The testing will occur in a parallel environment that will not
disrupt the current operation of the root zone management system.<br>
<dd>These developments will help ensure that the IANA transition will be
done in a manner that preserves the security and stability of the
DNS.<br>
<dd>Cheers!
<dd>--
<dd>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<dl>
<dd><font color="#888888">Seun Ojedeji,
<dd>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
<dd>web:
<a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a>
<dd>Mobile: <a href="http://??">+2348035233535</a>
<dd>alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453">
</a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng">
seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a><br><br>
<dl>
<dd>The key to understanding is humility - my view !</font>
</dl>
</dl>
</dl><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" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</blockquote></body>
</html>