-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
If the sole aim of this transition is not to impact IANA operations, then we might as well not have a transition at all. Seun, if the criteria are to be "workability" and "no negative impact on IANA operations", then why have this public discussion on transition? The US govt could easily have work out a closed door deal with the ICANN board and Verisign and get them to directly contract, cutting out NTIA, and be done with this entire "transition" business.
If part of the goal is to lessen the US jurisdictional control over IANA operations, this is an utter failure.
If part of the goal is to gain legitimacy from the global community, outside of the technical community, for the way the DNS system is set up and redress the concerns about the US that have continually been raised since before WSIS, this is an utter failure.
Jurisdictional resilience of the root zone is decreased when the RZA and the RZM are located in the same jurisdiction. And that's what is continuing to happen. But if this continues, then we can continue to expect cases like the .ir case. That is unfortunate.
On 23 August 2015 1:12:15 am IST, Seun Ojedeji <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>While I would have also preferred prior community engagement on this.
>However, based on what has been proposed (which seem quite complicated
>by
>the way), the question on feasibility of the proposal (even if
>community
>was consulted) still rest on the IFO and since ICANN was very much
>involved
>in developing this proposal, one can conclude that they found it
>workable
>and will not have negative impact on IANA operations.
>It may be helpful to get such assurance from ICANN officially.
>
>Regards
>
>Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>On 21 Aug 2015 21:58, "Pranesh Prakash" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> Given that the root zone maintainer function is one of the crucial
>parts
>> of this moving ship along with the root zone administrator and the
>root
>> zone operator, it is shocking that NTIA has decided to go ahead
>> unilaterally on this issue by consulting the two parties who would
>argue
>> for status quo on this issue.
>>
>> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pranesh
>>
>> Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]> [2015-08-18 12:06:42 +0900]:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> please find below the blog post from NITA with update about the
>process.
>>> quite interesting points: the extension of the contract till
>September
>>> 2016
>>> and also the proposal submitted by verisign and ICANN.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Rafik Dammak
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> This is relevant to the IANA Stewardship Transition, and the
>>> CWG-Stewardship work by extension. Here is the original link:
>>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition. The text
>of the
>>> blog is copied below for your convenience.
>>>
>>> An Update on the IANA Transition
>>> August 17, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for Communications and
>Information
>>> and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling
>>> [image: Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and
>NTIA
>>> Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling]
>>>
>>> The Internet’s global multistakeholder community has made tremendous
>>> progress in its work to develop a proposal to transition the
>historic
>>> stewardship role NTIA has played related to Internet’s domain name
>system
>>> (DNS).
>>>
>>> When we announced
>>> <
>>>
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions
>>> >
>>> our
>>> intent in March 2014 to complete the privatization of the DNS, we
>noted
>>> that the base period of our contract with ICANN to perform technical
>>> functions related to the DNS, known as the IANA functions, expired
>on
>>> September 30, 2015. However, it has become increasingly apparent
>over the
>>> last few months that the community needs time to complete its work,
>have
>>> the plan reviewed by the U.S. Government and then implement it if it
>is
>>> approved.
>>>
>>> Accordingly, in May we asked the groups developing the transition
>>> documents
>>> how long it would take to finish and implement their proposals.
>After
>>> factoring in time for public comment, U.S. Government evaluation and
>>> implementation of the proposals, the community estimated it could
>take
>>> until at least September 2016 to complete this process. In response
>to
>>> their feedback, we informed Congress on Friday that we plan to
>extend our
>>> IANA contract with ICANN for one year to September 30, 2016. Beyond
>2016,
>>> we have options to extend the contract for up to three additional
>years if
>>> needed.
>>>
>>> This one-year extension will provide the community with the time it
>needs
>>> to finish its work. The groups are already far along in planning the
>IANA
>>> transition and are currently taking comments on their IANA
>transition
>>> proposals. As we indicated in a recent Federal Register notice
>>> <
>>>
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iana_transition_comment_notice_08102015.pdf
>>> >,
>>> we encourage all interested stakeholders to engage and weigh in on
>the
>>> proposals.
>>>
>>> In preparation for the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship
>>> transition, NTIA also asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal
>>> detailing how best to remove NTIA’s administrative role associated
>with
>>> root zone management, which the groups working on the transition
>were not
>>> asked to address. We asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal
>>> detailing how best to do this in a manner that maintains the
>security,
>>> stability and resiliency of the DNS. Under the current root zone
>>> management
>>> system, Verisign edits and distributes the root zone file after it
>has
>>> received authorization to do so from NTIA. Verisign and ICANN have
>>> developed a proposal
>>> <
>>>
>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf
>>> >
>>> that
>>> outlines a technical plan and testing regime for phasing out the
>largely
>>> clerical role NTIA currently plays in this process. The testing will
>occur
>>> in a parallel environment that will not disrupt the current
>operation of
>>> the root zone management system.
>>>
>>> These developments will help ensure that the IANA transition will be
>done
>>> in a manner that preserves the security and stability of the DNS.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
>> sip:[log in to unmask] | xmpp:[log in to unmask]
>> https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>>
>>
- --
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:[log in to unmask] | xmpp:[log in to unmask]
twitter:https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=xH+j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
