[CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review

[Alan Greenberg]

No. But it has a strong role to play in recommending that something 
be authorized or not.

The committee does not have the authority to approve. That was given 
to the ICANN Board in the CWG Proposal. But presuming the committee 
is doing its job properly, the Board is not likely to second guess 
it. It is not too dissimilar from the role an SO plays in 
recommending policy to the Board. The process and the issues are 
different, but it is a similar (not identical) relationship, in this 
case related to implementation and not policy.

Alan

At 09/05/2016 10:44 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Alan,
>
>Do you see the RZERC as having an authorization  role?
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
>Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 10:38 AM
>To: Gomes, Chuck; Mueller, Milton L; Andrew Sullivan; 
>cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
>
>As I said in an earlier message, if the other communities want to 
>set up a similar consultative group, it will make things more 
>complex for the IANA folks, but sure, that could work.
>
>However, as far as I know, to date there has never been a discussion 
>about it, and in my mind, there MUST be an authorization function in 
>place for all significant changes in IANA operations prior to the transition.
>
>Alan
>
>At 09/05/2016 10:05 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >I wonder if we should let the numbers and protocol communities decide
> >how they would like this to happen.
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> >[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton
> >L
> >Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 9:53 PM
> >To: Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> >Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > Given that the whole thing just advises the Board and can be
> > > reconstituted later if need be, I'm not too exercised about
> > > including a reasonably wide group of people.  Also, of course, we
> > > should hope that the sorts of innovations that might involve this
> > > group would be relatively rare.  But, for instance, there's current
> > > work afoot to rename all the root servers to give a little more room
> > > in the DNS priming query; and I'd like to believe that we all think
> > > maximal co- operation in making those sorts of changes is the sort
> > > of thing
> > we can count on.
> >
> >Yes, absolutely, any major change in the names RZ operations needs to
> >have input from numbers and the IETF. I have no problem with broader
> >inclusion within the committee.  I do, however, want to see the remit
> >of this committee clearly restricted to the names. It seemed to me from
> >the initial reading that there was still confusion about this (and
> >these concerns were amply borne out).
> >
> >--MM
> >_______________________________________________
> >CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> >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