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

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> 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.
>

I sure agree with the "non-of the above" you indicated. So for clarity and
like i said, it means there will still be a separate process that would
determine how the agreement will be handled. The DT-F reiterate that point
in 1b:

> ......The NTIA has said that there will be a parallel but separate
> transition to disengage the NTIA from the Root Zone Maintainer. The exact
> form of the latter transition is not currently known, nor what, if
> anything, will replace the current Cooperative Agreement and the parties
> involved in providing the services currently covered under the Cooperative
> Agreement.
>



> 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.
>

Yeah that is clear, it is said (as quoted from DT-F above) that a parallel
process will be put in place and it can be easily confused to be the
NTIA/ICANN/Verisgn proposal. The goal for me is to have good clarity on
current status vis what is still expected to be achieved/provided.


>
>
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.
>

Well i don't understand the post-transition practicality of what you said
above; So NTIA and VeriSign will maintain the agreement but ICANN will
carry out NTIA part of the responsibility, it does make sense in
implementation/testing phase but not after oversight transition. Unless its
determined that the transition proposals(both CCWG and ICG) is
insufficient/over-sufficient to keep ICANN accountable/stable
post-transition.

Regards

>
> 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/
>
> 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" <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
>
>
> *An Update on the IANA Transition*
>
> August 17, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
> and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling
>
> The Internet̢۪s 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 Internet’s domain name
> system (DNS).
> When we announced
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>
> 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 Federal Register notice
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iana_transition_comment_notice_08102015.pdf>,
> 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 NTIA̢۪s 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 proposal
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf>
> 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 Mobile: +2348035233535 <http://??> alt email:
> <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150823/6d82966d/attachment-0001.html>