[CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Good evening:

Before we get too much involved with the details of RZERC, may I say that I am not convinced that we need another committee or a charter about the Root Zone atall.
There are two significant issues in this context that were identified twenty years ago and remain germane:

1.	It is no longer appropriate for Verisign to hold control over the primary root server. As long as we could rely on the benign common sense of NTIA, that anomaly has been accepted, but things have now changed. Should Verisign be asked to choose between holding the .com Registry and holding the primary root server, I have little doubt as to which way they would go.

2.	The geographical distribution of the other Root Servers is no longer consistent with the contemporary topology of the Internet. Granted that the proliferation of mirror servers has alleviated some of the technical constraints. However, the gains from rebalancing the situation far outweigh any conceivable losses. Do something about this soon.

These issues can be resolved within existing structures and competences. We do not need RZ***  to do so.

CW

On 08 May 2016, at 20:15, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 01:32:57PM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> Although it is responsible for overseeing the architecture of the Root Zone,
>> it is also responsible for significant operational changes in regard to all
>> IANA functions
> 
> I'm not sure I agree.  The justification for this committee is at ¶154
> ff in the CWG proposal
> (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53779816),
> but the text is not perfectly clear.  It recommends that "a
> replacement of this approval function be put in place for significant
> architectural and operational changes."  The antecedent of "this" is
> apparently in the prior paragraph (153), which includes changes to the
> root zone "environment" (with DNSSEC as an example) "as well as many
> classes of changes to IANA Functions Operator processes (including
> what may be published)".  That's the only example given, however, and
> it's hard to know what to make of this claim.
> 
> I well recall the discussion about how DNSSEC was implemented.  I'm
> having a hard time imagining the kind of operational change where, if
> an operational community wanted it, the Board would be in a position
> to say no.  For the OC in question would surely terminate and take
> their IANA function elsewhere in that case, no?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship