[DTC CSC] CSC Charter 0 7

[Bernard Turcotte]

Kurt,

Just a note that DT-D on authorization has completed its work which did not
include the authorization of new functions.

B.

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Kurt Pritz <kpritz at thedna.org> wrote:

> To David:
>
> My thought is that the mechanism for considering changes to IANA services
> and operations is the equivalent of the NTIA authorization function. NTIA
> authorized root zone changes and also authorized when new services or
> operations (such as automation) could be "turned on." Even if the root-zone
> change authorization is abandoned (which to me is ill-advised) there
> remains this other authorization task (that the authorization design team
> might decide to abandon also).
>
> To Stephanie:
>
> My thought is that the consultation would be among the "contracted
> parties": the IANA function, registry operators and other direct customs
> such as the RIRs if they are affected. Then that team could call in experts
> as need be. I don't see that any consultation on new or changed services
> goes beyond the function of IANA. IANA provides services, figures out how
> to improve those services or accommodate changes in the environment, gets
> agreement on the change from their customers, and implements the change.
> IANA staff might bring in ICANN staff to help with the design and
> implementation but that would be decided on a case by case basis.
>
> Kurt
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2015, at 1:55 PM, "Duchesneau, Stephanie" <
> Stephanie.Duchesneau at neustar.us> wrote:
>
> I am comfortable with this language. I think there will have to be some
> reconciliation between this/the escalation language/the periodic review
> language when we convene next week, but this is inevitable.
>
> The one question I would ask is whether this should be convened by ICANN
> and not IANA because consultation process itself seems beyond the function
> that would be carried out by the actual IANA department.
>
> Thanks for all your work (and fearless leadership) on this Donna.
>
> Stephanie
>
>
> *Stephanie Duchesneau*
>  *Neustar, Inc. / *Public Policy Manager
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006
> *Office:* +1.202.533.2623 *Mobile: *+1.703.731.2040  *Fax: *
> +1.202.533.2623 */* www.neustar.biz
> ------------------------------
> The information contained in this email message is intended only for the
> use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
> received this email message in error and any review, dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
> delete the original message.
>
> *From:* dt3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf
> Of *David Conrad
> *Sent:* Friday, April 10, 2015 4:45 PM
> *To:* Donna Austin; dt3 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [DTC CSC] CSC Charter 0 7
>
> Donna,
>
> Speaking for myself only, the wording looks fine for me.
>
> If others feel gives the CSC an inappropriate role, I would think a key
> recommendation from the Design Team to the CWG is that some (other)
> mechanism must be defined to accommodate technological/evolutionary changes
> in the Internet.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
> *From: *Donna Austin <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>
> *Date: *Friday, April 10, 2015 at 1:31 PM
> *To: *"dt3 at icann.org" <dt3 at icann.org>
> *Cc: *David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org>, Kim Davies <
> kim.davies at icann.org>
> *Subject: *CSC Charter 0 7
>
>
> All
>
> I think I’ve captured the changes suggested from the call this morning.
>
> On the big issue of ‘technological changes’ I’ve flagged that the Design
> Team has concerns about the CSC being responsible for anything other than
> monitoring. I’ve also provided some new text to try to overcome that
> concern, which I’m repeating here for ease of reference. I’m happy to take
> this out and just leave what we had and express our concerns if others do
> not think this is a viable option in that it does not overcome our primary
> concern.
>
> *The CSC, in consultation with registry operators, is authorised to
> discuss with the IANA Functions Operator ways to enhance the provision of
> IANA’s operational services to meet changing technological environments; as
> a means to address performance issues; or other unforeseen circumstances.
> In the event it is agreed that a material change in IANA functions services
> or operations would be beneficial, the CSC reserves the right to call for a
> community consultation and independent validation, to be convened by IANA,
> on the proposed change. Any recommended change must be approved by the
> ccNSO and RySG.*
>
> *The IANA Functions Operator would be responsible for implementing any
> recommended changes and must ensure that sufficient testing is undertaken
> to ensure smooth transition and no disruption to service levels.*
>
> I’m conscious that we need to wrap this up today and get to the CWG, but
> it would be useful if we could defer until such time as Staffan and Martin
> have had a chance to review.
>
> Thanks
>
> Donna
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dt3 mailing list
> dt3 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt3
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dt3 mailing list
> dt3 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/dt3
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/attachments/20150410/388aed63/attachment-0001.html>