[CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review

[David Conrad]

Hi,

There seems to be some confusion.  

If what you're asking re: "authorization role" is NTIA's role in authorizing root zone changes, then no.  But that's not what is being discussed (as far as I know).

I believe the role envisioned for RZERC was to take over the role NTIA performs relating to making sure we (the ICANN community) don't break the top level of the Internet's system of unique identifiers, not just the naming system, that are coordinated by ICANN (the organization) as the IANA Functions Operator.

I believe the reason NTIA hasn't (in recent memory) been involved in anything but names is because there was no need: there were no architectural changes in the purview of the IANA Functions Operator that risked breaking the top level of the Internet's system of unique identifiers.  However, I believe if safe to say that if such architectural changes were suggested for numbers or protocol parameters, NTIA would have contractually required ICANN, as the IANA Functions Operator, to jump through as many hoops as we jumped through when we DNSSEC-signed the root.

(and yes, I'm aware of the interesting political times that would have caused)

If "the community" wishes to not follow that model, that's fine, but I do not believe that was what was originally envisioned.

Regards,
-drc
(ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really)




On 5/9/16, 10:44 AM, "cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Gomes, Chuck" <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org on behalf of cgomes at verisign.com> 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4704 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160509/57b10bed/smime-0001.p7s>