[CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review

[Burr, Becky]

I too am concerned that this seems to go beyond what was needed or
contemplated.  


J. Beckwith Burr 
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
<http://www.neustar.biz>




On 5/9/16, 11:31 AM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> 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.
>
>Do you mean names IANA? It will help the discussion stay focused if you
>specify which IANA function you are talking about at all times.
>
>> an authorization function in place for all
>> significant changes in IANA operations prior to the transition.
>
>This strikes me as a massive overstatement of what was intended.
>PTI will be in charge of names-IANA operations. It can change its
>operations at will as long as it performs the functions its customers
>want it to perform efficiently and effectively. The Standing committee
>will continually monitor and review its operations and it will be subject
>to IFRs.
>
>The "significant changes" this committee was supposed to be concerned
>with were those that went beyond names-IANA operations and involved a
>need to coordinate with a number of other players: the RZM, the root
>server operators, perhaps other IFOs.
>
>I agree with Chuck that this committee was never intended to "approve" or
>"authorize" anything the way that NTIA "authorized" root zone file
>changes. It was intended to provide a platform for cooperation and
>coordination around major re-configurations of NAMES root zone process.
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship