[CWG-Stewardship] RZERC Charter for CWG review

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 08:39:59PM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> - The transition was required to specify how the NTIA would be replaced
> post-transition. The critical day-to-day issue was of course approval of
> changes to the RZ, but also operational changes and the systems they use.

> review. In my mind, presuming the other operational communities did not
> invent their own replacement of the NTIA authorization function, this group
> would address issues related to them as well.

As Milton said, the CWG proposal related to names, not everything IANA
is doing.  I don't know, and neither does anyone else know, what was
in your mind; but I don't believe any other OC was expecting the CWG
to come up with new processes for them to follow or be involved in.

The very idea that the CWG could or would invent some process to
govern the operations of protocol parameters registries flies in the
face of the way we developed the ICG proposal.  It's not on.  Speaking
for myself, I think there was not, is not, and will not be in future
any utility in a rubber stamp on changes to the operations of IANA
protocol parameter registries once the IETF has said what it wants.  I
feel exactly the same way about number resources registries.  The
reason I, at least, thought this was important for names is that there
seem to be a lot of names policy discussions where people expert in
the technical details are not closely engaged in the names community.
This was a way to ensure that there was a channel to encourage such
engagement.  Moreover, the CWG decided to reproduce much more of the
existing machinery than the other communities did, because those other
communities had a longer history of stewardship and accountability
mechanisms, because they'd spent the last 15 years working them out.
The names community had to work quickly and so for pragmatic reasons
tried to cleave to existing mechanisms.

> 2. Each of the other communities could set up their own consultative group
> and authorizer (which could be the group itself).

This is what they've _already done_ in the ICG proposal.  There is no
special thing that has to happen here.  You appear to be attempting to
invent a well-needed problem for a solution you have.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com