"Today, I would like to answer some of the questions that have arisen in recent weeks about NTIA’s role in the transition and then, to pose some questions of our own for stakeholders to consider as they continue their work to develop the plan. We do so in good faith and in appreciation of the hard work of the volunteer community engaged in these discussions... We will provide informal feedback where appropriate. We are as aware as anyone that we should not do anything that interferes with an open and participatory multistakeholder process. We support a process where all ideas are welcome and where participants are able to test fully all transition options. Nonetheless, the community should proceed as if it has only one chance to get this right. *Everyone has the responsibility to participate as they deem appropriate. If, by asking questions, we can ensure that the community develops a well-thought-out plan that answers all reasonable concerns, we will do so... We have taken a look at the December 1 proposal and the ensuing comments and discussion it has engendered. As the CWG on the naming-related functions continues its work to finalize its draft proposal, NTIA would like to offer the following questions for the stakeholders to consider:
- The draft proposes the creation of three or four new entities to be involved in the naming related processes. Could the creation of any new entity interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Given that the community will need to develop, implement and test new structures and processes prior to a final transition, can it get all this done in a timeframe consistent with the expectations of all stakeholders?
- Does the proposal ensure a predictable and reliable process for customers of root zone management services? Under the current system, registry operators can be confident of the timing of review and implementation of routine root zone updates. If a new committee takes up what is currently a routine procedural check, how will the community protect against processing delays and the potential for politicization of the system?
- In response to the December 1 draft, other suggestions have emerged. Are all the options and proposals being adequately considered in a manner that is fair and transparent?
- How does the proposal avoid re-creating existing concerns in a new form or creating new concerns? If the concern is the accountability of the existing system, does creating new committees and structures simply create a new set of accountability questions?
*Note: Editor of Domain Mondo, John Poole, is a "participant" in the IANA transition CWG-stewardship process.
Follow @DomainMondo
