[CWG-Stewardship] Contract, Co. and the root zone publisher
Mathieu Weill
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Wed Dec 10 07:37:26 UTC 2014
Dear Colleagues,
Many thanks for your feedbacks and elaborating on this idea. Reading
everyone's contributions, it seems to me there are three outlined
options so far :
a) status quo (RZM contracts with NTIA)
b) Contract Co. contracts with RZM
c) IANA Operator contracts with RZM
I would suggest we go back to our principles to assess the merits of
these options.
For instance, option c may present better perspectives in terms of
service performance overall (IANA Operator is fully accountable for
performance and can adjust any interface issue with its contractor, the
RZM), but it may be less desirable to some in terms of as separability
as well as checks and balances (if the RZM contract includes provisions
to double check).
Happy to elaborate if you think it valuable.
Best
Mathieu
Le 10/12/2014 05:53, Greg Shatan a écrit :
> Alan:
>
> The NTIA says that there should be a "parallel" transition of the
> NTIA's responsibilities relating to the RZM function. That doesn't
> sound like they want to hold onto the CA one second longer than they
> want to hold onto the IANA Functions Contract.
>
> I think this is squarely on our plate.
>
> Greg
>
> *Gregory S. Shatan **ï****Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>
> *666 Third Avenue **ï** New York, NY 10017-5621*
>
> *Direct*212-885-9253 *| **Main*212-949-9022
>
> *Fax*212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>
> */gsshatan at lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>/*
>
> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> *
>
> */www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>/*
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Alan Greenberg
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
>
> If we have no control over who performs the RXM function, we are
> not in control over the Cooperative agreement with the RZM. It is
> that Cooperative Agreement which presumably specifies who the RZM
> is to take instructions from and it is that CA (which we are not
> in control of but NTIA is) that must be altered to ensure that any
> new assignment of the IANA function is honoured.
>
> Alan
>
> At 09/12/2014 11:23 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>> Alan,
>>
>> Why do you say it is up to the NTIA? Our charter says it's up to
>> us. I don't believe we're adding a new complexity. I think we
>> are recognizing that we overlooked an existing complexity that
>> was on our plate.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> *Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab
>> *
>> *666 Third Avenue ï New York, NY 10017-5621
>> *
>> *Direct* 212-885-9253 <http://??> *| Main* 212-949-9022 <http://??>
>>
>> *Fax* 212-949-9190 <http://??> *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 <http://??>
>>
>> */gsshatan at lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>
>> /*
>> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> *
>> */www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>
>> /*
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alan Greenberg
>> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> > wrote:
>>
>> We need to specify that for the IANA transition to be
>> effective, there must be a requirement that the Root zone
>> maintainer accept change instructions from the assigned IANA
>> functions operator. It is up to NTIA to arrange its (or
>> perhaps our at some point) contract with the RZM to make sure
>> that this happens. Why add new complexity to our already
>> difficult task?
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>> At 09/12/2014 11:02 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
>>> All
>>>
>>> I agree with Mathieu's basic concern but would basically
>>> put it like this:
>>>
>>> ContractCo has no teeth in assigning the IANA functions
>>> contract to anyone unless it can also direct the Root
>>> zone maintainer to accept change instructions from the
>>> assigned IANA functions operator.
>>>
>>> Without the ability to do both those things, then the
>>> first power is imaginary.
>>>
>>> For example, imagine if Contract Co had a contract with
>>> ICANN to perform the IANA functions, and ICANN as IANA
>>> functions operator had a contract with the RZM.
>>>
>>> If ContractCo issued the contract for IANA functions to
>>> a different entity, ICANN could still control the root.
>>>
>>> So it appears to me that we aren't solving post-NTIA
>>> problems if we aren't dealing with RZM as well as IANA
>>> functions.
>>>
>>> Interested in other views and perspectives on this.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Jordan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9 December 2014 at 03:48, Milton L Mueller
>>> <mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with you Greg that this is in scope; you are
>>> also correct to point out that the NTIA language
>>> (âEURoerelated and parallelâEUR ) makes it rather
>>> ambiguous regarding our role relative to
>>> NTIAâEUR^(TM)s role in effecting this change.
>>> My take on it is that NTIA will actually take
>>> responsibility for modifying or ending the Verisign
>>> Cooperative Agreement once we have a complete
>>> proposal, but that our proposal really does need to
>>> be based on a clear understanding of what we want to
>>> happen to the RZM functions. This message should be
>>> more detailed but I donâEUR^(TM)t have time for more
>>> now.
>>>
>>> From: Greg Shatan [ mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
>>> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 3:14 AM
>>> To: Milton L Mueller
>>> Cc: Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr
>>> <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>;
>>> cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Contract, Co. and the
>>> root zone publisher
>>> I agree that this is another important reason for
>>> Contract Co. -- to contract with the RZM.
>>> However, I'm not sure I agree that issues relating
>>> to the Cooperative Agreement are part of a "Step 2"
>>> that is not within the scope of this CWG.
>>> The Q&A issued along with the NTIA's initial press
>>> release on the IANA transition said that there a
>>> "related and parallel" transition of the NTIA's
>>> responsibilities relating to the Verisign
>>> cooperative agreement.
>>>
>>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ
>>>
>>> A "parallel" transition seems inconsistent with a
>>> "Step 2" approach (which would be more of a "serial"
>>> transition).
>>> In our CWG's Charter, in the section entitled
>>> "Scope," there is the following paragraph (emphasis
>>> added):
>>> In respect of Function 2. (âEURoePerform
>>> Administrative Functions Associated With Root Zone
>>> ManagementâEUR ), this process currently involves
>>> distinct roles performed by three different entities
>>> through two separate legal agreements: the
>>> Contractor as the IANA Functions Operator, NTIA as
>>> the Administrator, and VeriSign (âEUR~or any
>>> successor entity as designated by the U.S.
>>> Department of CommerceâEUR ) as the Root Zone
>>> Maintainer. The accountability function currently
>>> performed by NTIA regarding the RZM role, as well as
>>> the discussion of the RZM management administrative
>>> interface currently used by NTIA are within the
>>> scope of the CWG. The issue of who performs the Root
>>> Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the
>>> CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort
>>> as needed. Additionally, issues related to naming
>>> policy e.g. delegation, redelegation or revocation
>>> of ccTLDs, RAA related policy issues etc. are not
>>> within the scope of the CWG.
>>> If I read this correctly, "the accountability
>>> function ... regarding the RZM role" is within our
>>> scope. This means that our proposal does have to
>>> provide for a transition of the NTIA's role relating
>>> to the RZM function. It stands to reason that, if
>>> the NTIA is no longer in this role, that the NTIA
>>> should no longer be a party to the Cooperative
>>> Agreement, since the Cooperative Agreement is a key
>>> part of the NTIA's accountability function. This
>>> also seems to call for a "parallel" transition (like
>>> the NTIA Q&A) of the NTIA's responsibilities
>>> relating to the Verisign cooperative agreement to be
>>> included in our proposal.
>>> Perhaps someone from the drafting team can shed some
>>> light on the genesis and meaning of this paragraph
>>> in our Charter. The only reference I can find to
>>> this paragraph on the DT wiki is a line from the
>>> Call #3 Meeting Notes and Action Items:
>>> Language on Root Zone Maintaining process: re-focus
>>> on role of NTIA in Root Zone maintainer process.
>>> Action: Avri and Chuck to propose language to the
>>> group. Group aware of ChuckâEUR^(TM)s role and no
>>> objection.
>>> I think we need to get some real clarity on this
>>> point very soon, so that our Proposal does not fail
>>> to deal with part of our mandate.
>>> Greg
>>> Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab
>>> 666 Third Avenue ï New York, NY 10017-5621
>>> Direct 212-885-9253 <tel:212-885-9253> | Main
>>> 212-949-9022 <tel:212-949-9022>
>>> Fax 212-949-9190 <tel:212-949-9190> | Cell
>>> 917-816-6428 <tel:917-816-6428>
>>>
>>> gsshatan at lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan at lawabel.com>
>>> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>
>>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Milton L Mueller
>>> <mueller at syr.edu <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mathieu
>>> You are correct to suggest that the status of
>>> Verisign as RZM is still a bit of a loose end in
>>> the transition process. However, the scenario
>>> you propose isn't a problem with this plan; if
>>> it could happen under a new regime, too if we
>>> are not careful. There would be nothing
>>> preventing Verisign from refusing to implement
>>> IANA change requests from ICANN, for example.
>>> So this is not an argument against any
>>> particular plan, it is simply identifying a
>>> problem that the NTIA has to take care of after
>>> the transition.
>>> Currently, Verisign is bound to modify the root
>>> zone changes approved by the NTIA through a
>>> Cooperative Agreement with the Commerce
>>> Department. Ultimately, that agreement has to go
>>> away to complete the IANA transition. If
>>> Verisign continues to be the Root Zone File
>>> implementer, the cooperative agreement has to go
>>> away otherwise the NTIA will still be in control
>>> of the root. However, for practical reasons the
>>> NTIA has chosen to make that "step 2" after they
>>> get an agreeable IANA transition plan. My guess
>>> is that once we have an acceptable plan, then
>>> the NTIA-Verisign cooperative agreement will be
>>> modified and the new IANA contractor will work
>>> out an agreement with whoever the RZF
>>> implementer turns out to be.
>>> This is another reason why we MUST have a
>>> Contract Co.!!!! How are you going to have
>>> authority over RZF change implementation without
>>> a legally binding, readily enforceable contract?
>>> One thing that may put your mind at ease:
>>> Verisign does not want to be in control of root
>>> zone file modifications. That would make it
>>> liable for antitrust challenges or make it
>>> subject to liability for other things that might
>>> happen related to RZF changes. It is a private,
>>> commercial company, and putting a private
>>> company in charge of a critical resource used by
>>> its competitors is not a position a company
>>> residing in a jurisdiction with strong antitrust
>>> laws wants to be in. The current arrangement
>>> makes Verisign the operator but someone else has
>>> the responsibility for the changes.
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
>>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
>>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship- <mailto:cwg-stewardship->
>>> > bounces at icann.org <mailto:bounces at icann.org>]
>>> On Behalf Of Mathieu Weill
>>> > Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2014 7:41 AM
>>> > To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>>> > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Contract, Co. and
>>> the root zone publisher
>>> >
>>> > Dear Colleagues,
>>> >
>>> > Having now read carefully the proposal
>>> document, I have a significant
>>> > concern to share with all Members and
>>> Participants. I feel like we are missing
>>> > an important part of the puzzle.
>>> >
>>> > I apologize for raising this concern so late,
>>> and I hope this concern will be
>>> > easily dismissed if I have missed something.
>>> >
>>> > Here is the scenario that raised my concern.
>>> >
>>> > The CWG suggests to create Contract, Co. as
>>> the contracting party for the
>>> > IANA contract in the future. Consider the
>>> scenario where Contract, Co., upon
>>> > instruction from the MRT after a fierce
>>> debate, contracts with someone else
>>> > than Icann, following an RFP.
>>> >
>>> > Consider now that, due to external
>>> considerations, the root zone publisher
>>> > (currently, Verisign) indicates that it does
>>> not intend accepting requests from
>>> > the new IANA operator. We would be facing a
>>> deadlock, threatening the
>>> > ability to maintain the root zone in a secure
>>> and stable manner.
>>> >
>>> > Am I missing something here ? Unless I am, I
>>> believe we would need to
>>> > expand our investigations to be able to
>>> address this scenario, by :
>>> > - analyzing the root zone publisher function,
>>> especially by what mechanisms
>>> > it is bound to publish IANA-approved changes
>>> to to the root zone.
>>> > - investigating options in our transition
>>> proposal, through which to ensure
>>> > that the root zone publisher remains committed
>>> to publish changes in the
>>> > root when, and only when, they are approved by
>>> the IANA Operator.
>>> >
>>> > Many thanks in advance for your replies
>>> regarding both the validity of this
>>> > scenario as well as potential ways to address
>>> that risk.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > *****************************
>>> > Mathieu WEILL
>>> > AFNIC - directeur général
>>> > Tél: 01 39 30 83 06
>>> > mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
>>> > *****************************
>>> > ATTENTION : L'Afnic a déménagé le 31 mars
>>> 2014 !
>>> > Notre nouvelle adresse est :
>>> > Afnic - Immeuble Le Stephenson - 1, rue
>>> Stephenson - 78180 Montigny-le-
>>> > Bretonneux
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>>> >
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> InternetNZ
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649
> <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its
> potential.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: 01 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
*****************************
ATTENTION : L'Afnic a déménagé le 31 mars 2014 !
Notre nouvelle adresse est :
Afnic - Immeuble Le Stephenson - 1, rue Stephenson - 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141210/3dffa010/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list