A.Sozonov's comments on ICANN's role and remit in Security, Stability & Resiliency of the Internet's unique identifiers

[Alexei Sozonov <a.sozon@xxxxxxxxx>]

*1.                         **1. What does it mean "to coordinate at the
overall level the global Internet's system of unique identifiers"?*

Given that ICANN today “de-facto” is the only and fully  accepted body
representing multi-stakeholder  structure of Internet users, governments,
business  and infrastructure participants, “to coordinate at the overall
level the global Internet's system of unique identifiers” might mean that
the ICANN’s role is role of the of such existing and  widely  accepted body
 who  is in-charge in steering  the Internet's system of unique identifiers
in just and harmonious way, serving combinations and interactions of the
Internet participants  and its functional  infrastructure.



*2. What are the limits of that coordination role?*

The limits of that coordination role might be set differently:

1) As the bottom-up process, in case of reasonable demand of the Internet
users and infrastructure participants;

2) As the response of demand from Governmental Bodies the system might be
coordinated to extend with no compromising its wholeness and stability



*3. What does it mean to ensure the security and stability of the global
Internet's unique identifier systems?*

The statement “to ensure the security and stability of the global
Internet's unique identifier systems” might mean to ensure that internet as
a whole will continue to work as just, secure and stable system. It might
and will be addressing and implementing security and stability solutions
given the input from Governmental Bodies and other legitimate bodies,
making the other Internet ecosystem concerns delivered to the public.



*"ICANN should document and clearly define the nature of the SSR
relationships it has within the ICANN community in order to provide a
single focal point for understanding the interdependencies within the
organizations." *

*Consistent with this recommendation, it would be helpful to receive
community feedback on ICANN's SSR relationships with others in the Internet
ecosystem, including groups such as the root server operators, RIRs,
Registrars, standards bodies, law enforcement, CERTs, and operational
security communities such as the Conficker Working Group, MAAWG, etc.*

*Open questions include:***

* *

   1. *What is ICANN's coordination role with root server operators? This
   relates to Recommendation 1, question 1.*

ICANN's coordination role with root server operators might be resembled,
but not limited, to the role in ICANN-Registry mechanism to insure
stability and contingency of root server operations.



   1. *Should ICANN develop a process for transitioning a root server
   should a root server operator cease that role?*

Given the suggestion above (1.), ICANN might develop a root server
transition process or use other existing practices if a root server
operator ceases that role. (As per  ICANN - Registry mechanism).



   1. *What is ICANN's scope of responsibility for addressing an attack
   against root servers, or "against the DNS" in general?*

It does not seems to be reasonable for now if ICANN would have to accept
full responsibility for addressing an attack against root servers, or
"against the DNS" in general, since such attacks are malicious activity
with different reasons and targets. But “if” and “after” ICANN would adopt
ICANN-Registry mechanism to insure stability, necessary protective
resources could be deployed to exercise defense mechanism. That will lead
to much higher level of responsibility for addressing an attack against
root servers and "against the DNS" in general.



Very respectfully,


in my individual capacity:


Alexei Sozonov

______________________________

Rusnames Ltd\ISOC Russia Chapter