[DTL] Notes from DT-L Call on 8 April at 13:00 UTC

Thu Apr 9 23:36:56 UTC 2015

Matthew,

I've made a few edits and comments.

I'm a bit confused on the KSK transition bit.  The way the KSK is managed,
what really needs to transition is the administration of the HSMs, its
supporting infrastructure, and the operation of the key ceremonies.  In the
ideal world, this would be done in conjunction with a KSK rollover, but that
would be scary and take a long time.  As such, the "lighter approach" would
probably be preferred (I believe a KSK rollover will have been done long
before this process would ever have a chance to be executed).  While
swapping out HSMs wouldn't hurt and might improve the trust level a bit, I'm
not sure I see the point given the openness/transparency of how the HSMs are
actually used.  I'd think a ceremony in which control of the HSMs and the
ceremonies were transferred would be sufficient.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
-drc

From:  Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>
Date:  Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 8:08 AM
To:  David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org>, Design Team Four <dt4 at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [DTL] Notes from DT-L Call on 8 April at 13:00 UTC

> 
> Hi David
> 
> I think we are as far as we can get without your review and thoughts.  Hope
> you don't mind giving this a careful read.  Please let us know if there are
> things that are missing, don't make sense, etc.
> 
> If you edit in suggesting mode that would appreciated.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QRiXP9-nxM-h8FgJ_FyM962EwdjnRESrDT2jOtlRZZ
> 0/edit
> 
> Just for background...  Given time constraints, etc., we decided it was
> probably best to go back to the existing plan and use that as the basis for
> our review.  We have characterized our evolution of the existing doc as a
> "business continuity" framework rather than a full plan and recommend that a
> full(er) plan be developed post transition.
> 
> Thanks so much.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 4/8/2015 7:04 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> No worries. When I get it, I'll take a look and get back to you asap.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>> 
>> From: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 7:14 AM
>> To: David Conrad <david.conrad at icann.org>
>> Subject: Fwd: [DTL] Notes from DT-L Call on 8 April at 13:00 UTC
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi David
>>> 
>>> Hope you don't mind me running this template by your tomorrow for your
>>> feedback.
>>> 
>>> Apologies for the short notice.
>>> 
>>> Matthew
>>> 
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: [DTL] Notes from DT-L Call on 8 April at 13:00 UTC
>>> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 13:45:52 +0000
>>> From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
>>> <mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
>>> To: dt4 at icann.org<dt4 at icann.org> <mailto:dt4 at icann.org>
>>> 
>>> Dear all, 
>>> Notes from today¹s call are below:
>>> 
>>> DT-L Call on 8 April at 13:00 UTC
>>> 
>>> Google Doc: 
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QRiXP9-nxM-h8FgJ_FyM962EwdjnRESrDT2jOtlR
>>> ZZ0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>  
>>> Wiki page: 
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/DT-L+Transition+Plan
>>> 
>>> Members of DT-L include:
>>> James Gannon -- apologies
>>> Guru Acharya
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Christopher Wilkinson -- not in attendance
>>> Jaap Akkerhuis
>>> Allan MacGillivray
>>> Graeme Bunton 
>>> 
>>> Notes: 
>>> Scale back ambitions for the time-being and focus on current transition plan
>>> plan. 
>>> 
>>> Suggestion to meet Friday's deadline is to:
>>> * use the template and evolve it based on the current transition plan;
>>> * elaborate on the high-level principles; and
>>> * look at other dependencies with DTs (and other communities)
>>> * elaborate a set of recommendations for how the plan should evolve post
>>> transition 
>>> 
>>> Action (Matthew): Capture David's comments on DT-L. Also will want to run
>>> this template by him tomorrow.
>>> 
>>> Dependencies with other DTs:
>>> DT-O (Budget) will not be addressing budget costs for transition plan.
>>> 
>>> DT-M (Escalation): one of their escalation steps may at some point be a RFP
>>> or separation, but the detail is not being addressed.
>>> Currently the escalation step relating to RFP says '6. Initiate RFP or
>>> [Process mechanism yet to be defined] [Pending Legal Advice & Fundamental
>>> Bylaw definition in CCWG]'
>>> --> DT-L could recommend a process for transition
>>> Action (Allan): draft recommendations for escalation related aspects (will
>>> circulate on mailing list)
>>> 
>>> DT-N (Periodic Review) could also be related.
>>> 
>>> Things to note/edit in the document:
>>> - Scaling back from original plan to write a new transition plan, and
>>> instead focusing on the current transition plan and additions to it
>>> - Have not received C.7.2 but submitted a DIDP request for it (submitted an
>>> received two other DIDP requests)
>>> 
>>> Action (Jaap): draft text and recommendations for KSK rollover.
>>> Action (Guru): go over initial concerns (6 point in an email about the
>>> trasition plan) and see if addressed in draft.
>>>  
>>> Analysis of Transition Plan:
>>> 'Document Structure' needs to refer to new proposal structure
>>> Transition Actions
>>> 'Deliverables not requiring transition' -- note the DIDP request for C.7.2
>>> 
>>> At best, we'll have a framework for a transition. What DT-L produces can be
>>> taken to another level at a later point.
>>> 
>>> Deadline for edits to document in 24h. Aim for 13:00 UTC on 9 April. This
>>> way, Matthew will send text to David for review/feedback.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> + 44 (0)771 247 2987
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt4/attachments/20150409/97f8cfbe/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt4/attachments/20150409/97f8cfbe/smime-0001.p7s>