[Ssr2-review] Action Item from the SSR2 15 March 2017 Plenary

Matogoro Jabera jaberamatogoro at gmail.com
Mon Mar 20 08:46:00 UTC 2017


Thank Geoff,

The scope of our review is very important and I would appreciate if in the
coming meeting we can have time to explore in detail the understanding of
each review team on the scope of our work.


Regards,
Matogoro

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net> wrote:

> Scope question: Is this an SSR of ICANN or an SSR of the PTI?
>
> I had thought this was a SSR of ICANN, and the PTI has its own independent
> existence, governance structures, and I presume the PTI Board will be
> responsible for conducting its own processes of periodic audit and review.
>
> If this is indeed the case, then I am hard pressed to understand why an
> ICANN SSR has any chartered responsibility to peer over the fence into the
> PTI’s space.
>
> If I have this all wrong, I’d appreciate a better understanding of exactly
> why the PTI falls into the scope of this ICANN-chartered SSR exercise
> before we rush into any studies of KMFs, key ceremonies and the like.
>
> kind regards,
>
>    Geoff
>
>
>
>
> > On 17 Mar 2017, at 10:06 pm, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Apologies!
> >
> > So the KMFs are the Key Management Facilities that are used to store and
> operate the extremely important set of private keys that sign the root zone
> of the internet for the DNSSEC.
> > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dnssec-qaa-2014-01-29-en
> >
> > You can see what the facilities look like and one of the high trust
> ceremonies being performed at https://www.iana.org/dnssec/ceremonies/28
> >
> > They are one of the few physical facilities that have extremely high
> security requirements and it would be useful for the team to understand
> where the contract for management of the KMFs stands and did it transfer to
> PTI as part of the IANA transition, as when it comes to the DNSSEC and the
> Key Ceremonies we still have a lot of overlap.
> >
> > -James
> >
> > From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at oxil.co.uk>
> > Date: Friday 17 March 2017 at 12:02
> > To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> > Cc: Karen Mulberry <karen.mulberry at icann.org>, SSR2 <
> ssr2-review at icann.org>, Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian at icann.org>, Elise
> Gerich <elise.gerich at iana.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Ssr2-review] Action Item from the SSR2 15 March 2017
> Plenary
> >
> > Hi James
> >
> > Thanks for this.  Would you be able to spell out the acronyms for those
> members of the team who are less familiar with the ICANN environment?
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Emily
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:00 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi Karen,
> >
> > Also just putting in writing my request for John from the SSR side or
> the PTI team to set out the ownership and responsibility matrix for the
> KMFs as requested in the meeting.
> >
> > -james
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ssr2-review mailing list
> Ssr2-review at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
>



-- 
MATOGORO Jabhera
Assistant Lecturer & Coordinator - Microsoft Innovation Center, Tanzania
College of Informatics and Virtual Education
The University of Dodoma (www.udom.ac.tz)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/attachments/20170320/1f98c38c/attachment.html>


More information about the Ssr2-review mailing list