Some responses to some recent public comments

[Andrew Sullivan <asullivan@xxxxxxx>]

Dynamic Network Services, Inc ("Dyn") has noted some recent comments
in response to an ICANN call for community feedback.  We are pleased
to be able to offer some remarks.

ICANN asked for community feedback on certain questions with respect
to its response to the Security, Stability & Resiliency Review Team.
ICANN sought specific guidance on various aspects of the SSR RT
report.

We were originally pleased with the Draft Statement of ICANN's Role
and Remit in Security, Stability and Resiliency of the Internet's
Unique Identifier Systems, because we believed it struck the right
balance: it was a clear statement of principles, and a clear statement
of the limitations of ICANN's scope of activity, without being overly
specific.  We think that sort of statement is exactly what the SSR RT
report called for.

Some of the public comments, however, appear to us to suggest that the
statement needs to be quite a bit more detailed, to the extent that it
would address some issues in considerable depth.  Examples, in our
reading, include the comments from the ISPCP and comments from Roberto
Gaetano.  Including such detail in the role and remit statement also
appears to be invited by ICANN's own request for feedback -- most
especially by ICANN's operational questions, "Should ICANN develop a
process for transitioning a root server should a root server operator
cease that role?" and "What is ICANN's scope of responsibility for
addressing an attack against root servers, or 'against the DNS' in
general?"  We are convinced that this line of thinking, however
correct in the details of important topics, lead in the wrong
direction.

For the purposes of understanding foundational principles for action,
"clear" definitions are not necessarily "detailed" ones.  For
instance, we think it would be a terrible mistake to create a general
process for moving operation away from a root server operator.  The
arrangement we have for root server operations to date has always
responded to particular facts about the world; but those responses
have been govered by principles that appear historically to have been
widely shared even if they were not plainly articulated.  We
understand the SSR RT report to be asking for clear articulation of
the principles, and not for the development detailed and bureaucratic
process rules.
 
For that reason, we think the Draft Statement for which ICANN was
seeking comment strikes the right balance.  It is reasonably short and
comprehensible. It sticks to the key issue, which is the principles
that will lie behind ICANN's action.  The statement as drafted should
provide a solid basis for decision making no matter what future
challenges present themselves, especially because of the statement's
emphasis on shared responsibility.

Resepctfully submitted,

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
Dyn Labs
asullivan@xxxxxxx