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

Sun Aug 23 19:38:29 UTC 2015

Seun, we will have to disagree on this then.

The proposal itself is neither consistent nor 
inconsistent with those sections of the DT-F 
proposal, because it is silent on them. The 
proposal is only addressing the mechanics of the 
testing and phasing out of the NTI authorization. 
It is am alternative methodology to section 1a.

However, the Questions and Answers that follow 
the proposal do privide some idea of how the issues raised in 1b may play out.

Section 1.b.i talks about what will happen if the 
NTIA is still tied to Verisign under the 
Cooperative Agreement past the actual moment of 
transition, and says there will need to be an 
amendment of that Cooperative Agreement. The 
answer to "Q. How will this impact the 
Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and Verisign?" 
mentions just such an amendment.

Section 1.b.ii talks about what will happen 
should the NTIA-Verisign Cooperative agreement be 
dissolved at the point of transition. It is not 
obvious that this will happen at that point or 
even later, but the answer to "Q. How will this 
impact the Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and 
Verisign?" alludes to such a replacement.

For the record, although the general 
understanding of the March 2014 announcement and 
in particular the associated Q/A 
(http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ) 
alludes to the phase-out of the NTIA-Verisign Cooperative Agreement:

>Q. What impact does this announcement have on 
>the cooperative agreement with Verisign?
>A. Aspects of the IANA functions contract are 
>inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign 
>cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root 
>zone file management), which would require that 
>NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities.
That does not actually SAY that the cooperative 
agreement will be phased out, only that the 
RESPONSIBILITIES under the agreement will be 
transitioned. Perhaps the NTIA plans to keep the 
Cooperative Agreement in some form for some 
period of time. I have no idea. The reference in 
the most recent questions to a new ICANN-Verisign 
agreement seems to imply that it will be replaced at some point.

Alan

At 23/08/2015 02:34 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

>Hi Alan,
>
>Unless there is another document/process to 
>expect, I don't think the proposal is entirely 
>consistent with Section b (i and ii) of DT-F 
>report which specifically indicates what is expected of the agreement.
>
> From my readings, It seem the proposal attempts 
> to address bii of DT-F which means the RZM 
> transition will be completed by/before 
> stewardship transition (all hopefully within 
> next year). Doing that however will not have 
> addressed item b of DT-F which has to do with 
> the agreement between the Verisign and NTIA.
>
>So I don't think we should say the proposal is 
>generally consistent with DT-F as IMO the 
>agreement would be the major piece in the RZM transition.
>
>Regards
>Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>The proposal pointed to by the NTIA Blog entry 
>(and by Milton's piece) is an implementation of 
>the recommendation of the CWG and DT-F. But 
>carried to an extreme. It allows the transition 
>to occur  with no code changes and virtually no 
>changes in procedure other than those which will 
>be well tested prior to the transition.
>
>I think that the temporary cloning of the entire 
>RZMS is a rather extreme measure to avoid making 
>coding or operational changes at the moment of 
>transition, but it *IS* following the sound 
>engineering practice of minimizing concurrent 
>changes, and specifically ones that cannot be 
>fully tested prior to the moment of transition. 
>If it had been me, I would have developed the 
>revised code and used the cloned system to test THAT....
>
>As far as I can tell, this proposal has nothing 
>to do with the relationship of the NTIA and 
>Verisign and their cooperative agreement (other 
>than altering the mechanics of what is done under the agreement).
>
>Alan
>
>At 22/08/2015 10:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Just to mention that Milton wrote an 
>>interesting blog post summary about this proposal:
>>
>><http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/18/whats-going-on-between-ntia-icann-and-verisign/>http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/08/18/whats-going-on-between-ntia-icann-and-verisign/ 
>>
>>
>>Inline with determining consistency with what 
>>DT-F proposed, it will be good to ask the 
>>question of whether the proposal shared by 
>>Larry will ultimately remove the administrative 
>>role NTIA. The current wording in the proposal 
>>does not make that clear and I think that would 
>>indeed determine if we are really done with 
>>stewardship transition or just scratching the surface.
>>
>>Regards
>>Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>>Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>On 18 Aug 2015 08:31, "Seun Ojedeji" 
>><<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>seun.ojedeji at gmail.com > wrote:
>>Hello,
>>Larry has just posted an update on the IANA 
>>transition and extension of ICANN contract. An 
>>item of the update is the proposal that 
>>addresses the administrative(middleman) role of 
>>NTIA in the update of the root. Although the 
>>CWG did not address this in its proposal due to 
>>scope, it highlights some high level principles 
>>(expectations) on this. It may be good to check 
>>if the ICANN/Verisign proposal meets such expectations.
>>Regards
>>
>>
>><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition
>>
>>
>>
>>An Update on the IANA Transition
>>
>>
>>
>>August 17, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for 
>>Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling
>>
>>The InternetÃ¢€™s global multistakeholder 
>>communityity has made tremendous progress in 
>>its work to develop a proposal to transition 
>>the historic stewardship role NTIA has played 
>>related to InternetÃ¢â‚¬™s domain name system (DNS).
>>When we 
>><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>announced 
>>our intent in March 2014 to complete the 
>>privatization of the DNS, we noted that the 
>>base period of our contract with ICANN to 
>>perform technical functions related to the DNS, 
>>known as the IANA functions, expired on 
>>September 30, 2015. However, it has become 
>>increasingly apparent over the last few months 
>>that the community needs time to complete its 
>>work, have the plan reviewed by the U.S. 
>>Government and then implement it if it is approved.
>>Accordingly, in May we asked the groups 
>>developing the transition documents how long it 
>>would take to finish and implement their 
>>proposals.  After factoring in time for public 
>>comment, U.S. Government evaluation and 
>>implementation of the proposals, the community 
>>estimated it could take until at least 
>>September 2016 to complete this process. In 
>>response to their feedback, we informed 
>>Congress on Friday that we plan to extend our 
>>IANA contract with ICANN for one year to 
>>September 30, 2016. Beyond 2016, we have 
>>options to extend the contract for up to three additional years if needed.
>>This one-year extension will provide the 
>>community with the time it needs to finish its 
>>work. The groups are already far along in 
>>planning the IANA transition and are currently 
>>taking comments on their IANA transition 
>>proposals. As we indicated in a recent 
>><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iana_transition_comment_notice_08102015.pdf>Federal 
>>Register notice, we encourage all interested 
>>stakeholders to engage and weigh in on the proposals.
>>In preparation for the implementation phase of 
>>the IANA stewardship transition, NTIA also 
>>asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal 
>>detailing how best to remove NTIAÃ¢€™s 
>>administrative re role associated with root 
>>zone management, which the groups working on 
>>the transition were not asked to address. We 
>>asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal 
>>detailing how best to do this in a manner that 
>>maintains the security, stability and 
>>resiliency of the DNS. Under the current root 
>>zone management system, Verisign edits and 
>>distributes the root zone file after it has 
>>received authorization to do so from NTIA. 
>>Verisign and ICANN have developed a 
>><http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf>proposal 
>>that outlines a technical plan and testing 
>>regime for phasing out the largely clerical 
>>role NTIA currently plays in this process. The 
>>testing will occur in a parallel environment 
>>that will not disrupt the current operation of the root zone management system.
>>These developments will help ensure that the 
>>IANA transition will be done in a manner that 
>>preserves the security and stability of the DNS.
>>Cheers!
>>--
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Seun Ojedeji,
>>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>web:     <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>>Mobile: <http://??>+2348035233535
>>alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> 
>><mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>
>>The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>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/20150823/110cc3e4/attachment.html>