[Internal-cg] Question for CWG-names on RZM

Mueller, Milton L milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu
Sat Sep 19 13:41:51 UTC 2015


Russ Mundy and I agreed that it would be appropriate to send a question to the CWG (names) about the RZM issue. I sent this text out to him last night, but Russ has not indicated whether he likes this language or not. As we enter into the second day, I think it would be more efficient for me to send this to the entire group now rather than waiting, so that it's "out there" for you all to consider:

--MM

QUESTION FROM THE ICG FOR THE NAMES OC:

The statement below notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate "roles" with distinct functions. Currently, these roles are held and their associated functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to "make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification," did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or its IFO should not become RZM the without being subject to a "wide community consultation?"


---
2) Control of Root Zone Management: Currently, updating the Root Zone requires the active participation of three parties: the IFO, the Root Zone Maintainer and the NTIA. ... Post transition there will only be the IFO and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG-Stewardship is not recommending any change in the functions performed by these two roles at this time. The CWG-Stewardship is recommending that should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation."

From: Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 9:06 PM
To: 'Russ Mundy' <mundy at tislabs.com>
Cc: 'Keith Davidson' <keith at internetnz.net.nz>
Subject: Question for CWG-names on RZM

Russ, Keith
Here is a question I have formulated for transmission to the CWG.

The CWG proposal pertaining to root zone management cites as a "Principle" the following (paragraph 1158):

2) Control of Root Zone Management: Currently, updating the Root Zone requires the active participation of three parties: the IFO, the Root Zone Maintainer and the NTIA. The IFO receives change requests from various sources, validates them, and sends them to the Root Zone Maintainer who, once they are authorized by the NTIA, updates the Root Zone File, DNSSEC signs it and distributes it to the Root operators. Post transition there will only be the IFO and the Root Zone Maintainer. The CWG-Stewardship is not recommending any change in the functions performed by these two roles at this time. The CWG-Stewardship is recommending that should there be proposals to make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification, that such proposals should be subject to wide community consultation."

QUESTION FOR THE NAMES OC:

The statement above notes that the RZM and the IANA functions operator are separate "roles" with distinct functions. However, currently these roles and their associated functions are performed by separate, independent organizations (Verisign and ICANN, respectively). By its reference to "make changes in the roles associated with Root Zone modification," did the CWG also intend to imply that ICANN or its IFO should not become RZM the without being subject to a "wide community consultation?"

Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150919/ca446d4d/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list