Public Comments on IANA proposal

[Milton L Mueller]

NTIA has not put the Verisign Cooperative Agreement within the remit of the transition process. We have “not examined it in detail” (as James puts it) because it is not under our control. Sometimes that has been a bit weird, but Drafting Team F, which I participated in, handled this as best we could.  Here is the most relevant recommendation, which appears in III.A.iii.a (p. 29) of the proposal

“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 separation between the two at this time. The CWGStewardship is recommending that should there be a proposal to combine the two or make other changes in their respective roles in root zone modification, that it be subject to wide community consultation”

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of James Gannon
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 8:53 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Public Comments on IANA proposal

For the moment the Verisign component has not been examined in detail.
Its expected that there will be no change in that at this time.

From: David Post
Reply-To: David Post
Date: Tuesday 28 April 2015 13:47
To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>"
Subject: Re: Public Comments on IANA proposal

At 10:38 AM 4/26/2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

[SNIP]  SO:
In the current configuration, PTI is not in the position to issue RFP, it's rather the parent (ICANN) that is in the position to issue RFP based on the recommendation of IRF team/possible escalation from CSC. The later which is not yet very clear. So PTI is basically entering the current shoes of ICANN and ICANN will be entering the shoes of NTIA post-transition

And this may be a dumb question, but just to clarify ... if ICANN enters the shoes of NTIA (the current contract "Administrator"), and PTI enters the shoes of ICANN (the current "IANA Functions Operator"), I assume there will also be someone stepping into the shoes of VeriSign (the "Maintainer") that will have a contract with both ICANN and PTI - is that corect?

David





*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n       <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0> publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com         <http://www.davidpost.com         />
*******************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150429/93e1979e/attachment.htm>