[CWG-Stewardship] NTIA- An Update on the IANA Transition

[Alan Greenberg]

Certainly we need to do that.

I have done a VERY brief review of the proposal. 
It seems to be in line with what DT-F proposed, 
and in fact is very similar to a proposal that 
DT-F considered, but ultimately put into the 
recommendation as something that could be 
considered post-transition to increase the robustness of the process.

I have no knowledge of the process followed other 
than as described in the blog post, it was 
developed jointly by ICANN and Verisign. I cannot 
imagine that this was done without the 
involvement of the ICANN CTO, who was also working with DT-F.

Alan

At 18/08/2015 06:47 AM, James Gannon wrote:

>I think the CWG should do an assessment again 
>the proposal for RZM to make sure that it 
>doesn’t impact any of our work or require any 
>substantive changes, my initial read indicates 
>only one small change with regards to the RZM 
>Authorisation step being removed, the proposal 
>suggests replacing it with an authentication 
>step by PTI which I would suggest is a prudent 
>approach that the CWG should endorse. But I 
>think a methodical analysis shouldn’t take 
>long and would be good due diligence on our part.
>
>-James Gannon
>
>
>>On 18 Aug 2015, at 08:31, Seun Ojedeji 
>><<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf>proposal
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150818/e7e6a108/attachment.html>