Independent Review Of The ICANN Root Server System .
Independent Review of theICANN Root Server System AdvisoryCommittee (RSSAC)Assessment Report for Public ConsultationPrepared byLyman Chapin, Jim Reid, and Colin StruttInterisle Consulting Group, LLC22 February 2018
ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee AssessmentContentsContents2Figures3Executive Summary4Part I – INTRODUCTION8I.18The Root Server System Advisory CommitteeI.2I.2.1I.2.2I.2.3The RSSAC ReviewObjectivesMethodologySources991010Part II – FINDINGS12II.1II.1.1II.1.2II.1.3Implementation State of Prior 2.9Findings of the Current ReviewContextRoleStructureMembershipStakeholders and AccountabilityOpenness and TransparencyRSSAC CaucusRSSAC and RZERCRSSAC Relationships17172431333740424647Appendix A – Sources50A.1Personal interviews50A.2Survey52A.2.1Survey Questions52A.2.2Who Responded57A.2.3Survey Responses59Page 2 of 65
ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee AssessmentFiguresFigure 1 – The Root Server System Advisory Committee . 8Figure 3 – The Root Zone Management System . 21Page 3 of 65
ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee AssessmentExecutive SummaryIndependent Organizational ReviewThis report presents the initial findings of an independent organizational review of theICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC), which was undertaken inaccordance with the ICANN Bylaws1 in order to determine(i) whether [the RSSAC] has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure;(ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve itseffectiveness; and(iii) whether [the RSSAC] is accountable to its constituencies, stakeholder groups,organizations, and other stakeholders.In fulfilling this mandate, the Independent Examiner has made every effort to produceresults that are meaningful and useful to the RSSAC itself as well as informative andconclusive to ICANN and its community.The Root Server System Advisory CommitteeThe RSSAC is an ICANN Advisory Committee, created “to advise the ICANNcommunity and Board on matters relating to the operation, administration, security,and integrity of the Internet's Root Server System (RSS)”. By statute, its voting membersare representatives of the Root Server Operators (RSOs)—the independentorganizations that maintain and operate the worldwide server infrastructure thatresolves domain names at the top level (the root) of the Domain Name System (DNS). Itis important to recognize, however, that the RSSAC is not an “association” of the RSOs.Assessment and RecommendationsThe results of our review of the RSSAC will be presented in two phases:(i) our findings concerning the context, role and purpose, structure, operation, andoutcomes of the RSSAC, which represent the raw data collected from all sourcessubjected to a formal qualitative analysis, appear in this Assessment Report; and1ICANN Bylaws, Article 4, Section ce/bylaws-en/#article4.4)Page 4 of 65
ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee Assessment(ii) our recommendations for changes to the structure or operation of the RSSAC,which follow from the findings augmented by public consultation, will appear ina subsequent Final Report.The findings presented in this Assessment Report are the result of research andqualitative analysis, not judgement; as such they are the background for and input tothe recommendations that we will make in the Final Report but are not themselvesdefinitive or conclusive. None of these findings should be interpreted as implying anyparticular recommendation; they state what we found, not what action—if any—shouldbe taken in response.This Assessment Report has been published to solicit feedback from the ICANNcommunity during a public consultation period which will include a webinar, opencalls, and a public participation mailing list. The public consultation period will beginon 23 February 2018.Following the public consultation period, we will incorporate feedback into a FinalReport, which will contain both an updated assessment of the RSSAC and ourrecommendations for improving its structure and operation. A draft Final Report willbe published for public comment on 27 April 2018. The public comment period will beopen for 40 days. After incorporating comments from the ICANN community, we willpublish the Final Report on 2 July 2018.It is important to emphasize that our approach to this assessment report, and to thefinal report, does not require perfect representation across the ICANN community fromeither those interviewed or those surveyed. We have not, for example, drawnconclusions based simply on the frequency with which we heard a particular opinionduring our interviews and through the survey instrument. Similarly, our use of directquotations is intended to illustrate findings that are based on multiple sources, not togive undue weight or significance to the opinion of one individual.Principal findingsThe principal findings of our review represent a high-level summary of our assessmentfocused on the three areas of purpose, effectiveness, and accountability identified inthe Bylaws mandate for organizational reviews. All of the findings presented in thisreport are supported by the evidence compiled from extensive personal interviews, apublic on-line survey, and the documentary record.Page 5 of 65
ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee Assessment1 The ongoing RSSAC reformation that began in 2013—revised RSSAC charter, newoperating procedures, and creation of the RSSAC Caucus—has substantiallyimproved the structure and operation of the RSSAC.Implementing changes recommended by the prior review has significantly improvedthe effectiveness of the RSSAC. The addition of staff support and travel funding hasincreased RSSAC and Caucus work quality and meeting participation.2 The RSSAC has become more open, transparent, and accessible since the lastreview, but this has not been widely recognized by outside observers.The RSSAC’s focus on technical root server issues and deliberate non-participation inother ICANN activities have concentrated its impact on a small technical audience ofDNS experts. It is still widely perceived to be closed and secretive, and less transparentthan other ICANN ACs and SOs.3 As the only visible interface between ICANN and the RSOs, the RSSAC is expectedto deal with every root service issue that arises within ICANN, whether or not theissue is properly within its scope.The RSSAC’s scope is limited to providing information and advice about the root serversystem, but because it is the only visible point of contact between ICANN and the RSOsmany in the ICANN community imagine that its role is (or should be) much broader.The RSSAC is expected to deal with every root service issue that arises within ICANN,whether or not the issue is properly within its scope, simply because it appears to be theonly available interface between ICANN and the root server operators.4 The RSSAC’s ability to serve as a shared space for RSO–ICANN communicationand cooperation is complicated by a persistent legacy of distrust of ICANN by someof its members.The RSSAC is paradoxically both a statutory part of ICANN and a group with somemembers who persistently distrust ICANN, pushing back forcefully on its real orperceived infringement on their exclusive responsibility for all matters concerning rootsystem operations. The tension between the RSSAC and some of its memberorganizations has the potential to interfere with the clarity and authority of RSSACadvice.Page 6 of 65
ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee Assessment5 The current RSSAC membership model excludes non-RSO participants and theirdifferent skills and perspectives.The RSSAC membership model excludes both serving-side root service participants(e.g., non-RSO anycast instance providers and public DNS resolvers) and provisioningside interested parties (e.g., TLD registries and the ccNSO). It also denies the RSSAC thebenefit of skills and perspectives beyond those that can be provided by the root serveroperators.6 The RSSAC’s continuing purpose in the ICANN structure may include serving asthe focal point for issues of mutual concern to ICANN and the RSOs, such as futureoperational and funding scenarios for serving the root.The RSSAC is developing advice and recommendations concerning the future evolutionof the root server system and how it might be supported, but this work is beingconducted entirely by RSO representatives who will be directly affected by it. Manypeople outside of the RSSAC either don’t know that it’s working on root serviceevolution and other strategic policy issues or believe that its focus is misdirected.7 Because RSSAC members do not agree on who its stakeholders should be, it is notclear for what and to whom it should be accountable.Although its charter does not explicitly identify its stakeholders, its statement ofRSSAC’s role implies that they are the ICANN Board and community. Its members,however, do not agree on what this means in practice. The RSSAC has occasionallyfound it difficult to reach agreement on issues such as service level agreements andreporting for the root server system in the absence of a consensus accountabilityframework for itself and its members. A major stumbling block has been disagreementabout ICANN’s role in such a framework.8 The relative roles and responsibilities of the RSSAC, the RSSAC Caucus, theRZERC, and the SSAC are unclear to both outsiders and insiders.In many cases even members of one of these groups could not distinguish itsresponsibilities from those of the others.Page 7 of 65
ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee AssessmentPart I – INTRODUCTIONI.1The Root Server System Advisory CommitteeAccording to Section 12.2(c)(i) of the ICANN bylaws,2 the role of the Root Server SystemAdvisory Committee (RSSAC) “is to advise the ICANN community and Board onmatters relating to the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Internet'sRoot Server System”.The RSSAC’s voting members are representatives and alternates nominated by the RootServer Operators (RSOs). The IANA Functions Operator (IFO) and the Root ZoneMaintainer (RZM) each appoints one non-voting member. Non-voting inward liaisonsare provided by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the ICANN Security andStability Advisory Committee (SSAC).Figure 1 – The Root Server System Advisory vernance/bylaws-en/#article12Page 8 of 65
ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee AssessmentI.2The RSSAC ReviewI.2.1 ObjectivesSection 4.4 of ICANN’s bylaws3 establishes the basic objectives of the periodicorganizational review of ICANN’s structures and operations:The Board shall cause a periodic review of the performance and operation of each SupportingOrganization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other thanthe Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee (as defined inSection 8.1) by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review. The goalof the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shalldirect, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization, council or committee has acontinuing purpose in the ICANN structure, (ii) if so, whether any change in structure oroperations is desirable to improve its effectiveness and (iii) whether that organization, councilor committee is accountable to its constituencies, stakeholder groups, organizations and otherstakeholders.The objectives of this review of the RSSAC are specified in the scope of work: 41. An assessment of the implementation state of RSSAC’s prior review. Thisincludes a status report of the implementations approved by the ICANN Boardfrom the first RSSAC Review, and an assessment of the effectiveness of theseimplementations.2. An assessment of whether RSSAC has a continuing purpose within theICANN structure. Examination of RSSAC’s chartered purpose, to advise theICANN community and Board on matters relating to the operation,administration, security, and integrity of the Internet's Root Server System, andhow well it is fulfilled, will help assess the RSSAC’s continuing purpose withinthe ICANN structure.3. An assessment of how effectively RSSAC fulfills its purpose and whether anychange in structure or operations is needed to improve effectiveness, inaccordance with the ICANN-provided objective and quantifiable criteria. Theassessment of RSSAC structure and operations may include an assessment ofRSSAC’s makeup, its current level of participation in, but not limited to,ICANN’s specific review team, and cross-community efforts, the RSSAC’srepresentation and effectiveness within ICANN, the effectiveness of ge 9 of 65
ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee Assessmentcommunications (both internal and external towards ICANN and other SO/ACs),and the alignment of its charter with ICANN’s mission. Other points to examineinclude RSSAC’s decision-making methodology, transparency, processes,procedures, and competencies.4. An assessment of the extent to which RSSAC as a whole is accountable to thewider ICANN community, its organizations, committees, constituencies, andstakeholder groups to make effective selections. Determine if the RSSAC issufficiently accountable regarding the operation, administration, security, andintegrity of the Internet's Root Server System, according to its chartered mandate.I.2.2 MethodologyThe Interisle review team members attended, as observers, various RSSAC workshops,meetings, and conference calls. The in-person venues included the RSSAC Workshop inMaryland (October 2017), all sessions of the RSSAC meeting held during ICANN60 inAbu Dhabi (October 2017), and the RSSAC Caucus meeting at IETF100 in Singapore(November 2017). The team listened in on most of the RSSAC and RSSACAdministrative Committee conference calls from October 2017 through February 2018.Interisle conducted interviews with 48 people, both face-to-face at IETF and ICANNmeetings and remotely between October 2017 and February 2018. Interisle developedan on-line survey to gather inputs from a broader set of people than could beinterviewed; the survey ran from late November 2017 to December 2017. The Interisleteam reviewed a variety of relevant documents, including the RSSAC charter, internalRSSAC papers and notes, the RSSAC publications, and other pertinent documentationsources.The information gathered from these sources was subjected to a structured qualitativeanalysis, during which we identified key themes and perspectives and developed thesalient findings that appear in this report.I.2.3 SourcesThe findings of our independent review are derived from three principal sources: Individual interviews with 48 people who represent a variety of perspectives onthe RSSAC, including RSSAC representatives, alternates, and liaisons; RSSACCaucus members; members of ICANN Supporting Organizations and AdvisoryCommittees; the ICANN Board; members of the Root Zone Evolution ReviewCommittee (RZERC), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and InternetPage 10 of 65
ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee AssessmentEngineering Task Force (IETF), and the DNS Operations, Analysis, and ResearchCenter (DNS-OARC); operators of large DNS resolver systems; ICANN staff; andwell-placed observers of the Internet and its governing bodies. Appendix A.1contains a list of the people we interviewed. The responses of 39 people to an on-line survey. Appendix A.2 describes thesurvey and its results. Publicly available documentary materials, including published papers andarticles, blog entries, email exchanges, formal and informal presentations, andother reports that discuss the RSSAC and related activities. Our own extensive knowledge of ICANN, the RSSAC, and the DNS root serversystem.During a multi-stage review of documents, interview transcripts, and other sourcematerials, we identified and evaluated a very large number of individual arguments,statements, and assertions, and distilled those into a set of observations that representthe findings of our review. These observations are based on data extracted frommultiple sources, but in some cases a direct quotation5 from a particular document,interview, or survey response provides an important illustration of an observation.When we include a quotation from a primary source in this report, we either set it offtypographically as a separate paragraph:This is a direct quotation from a primary source.or we include it in-line using “quotation marks and italics”.In some cases—particularly those involving data from personal interviews—we have edited orparaphrased the direct quotation in order to ensure that the source is not identifiable.5Page 11 of 65
ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee AssessmentPart II – FINDINGSFindings are statements that express our reasoned interpretation of the information wecollected. They are numbered sequentially and set off typographically as follows:nFindings are derived from data subjected to collective qualitative analysis andevaluation. As the informative Assessment component of our independentreview, they precede and inform our subsequent Recommendations.This is the second review of the RSSAC, and as such builds on the outcome—findings,recommendations, and implementation—of the previous review. Our objective inpresenting the findings of this review, however, is not to produce a simple report card,but to convey to both the RSSAC itself and the wider community the richest possibletrove of information. Findings are the result of research and qualitative analysis, notjudgement; as such they are the background for and input to the Recommendations thatwill appear in the Final Report but are not themselves definitive or conclusive.II.1Implementation State of Prior ReviewThe first item in the scope of work for the current review is:1. An assessment of the implementation state of RSSAC’s prior review. Thisincludes a status report of the implementations approved by the ICANN Boardfrom the first RSSAC Review, and an assessment of the effectiveness of theseimplementations.II.1.1 TimelineThe first organizational review of the RSSAC was conducted in 2008 and 2009 by theIndependent Examiner (IE) Westlake Consulting. The IE’s final report of that review6was published on 9 March 2009. The RSSAC Review Working Group (RWG) consideredpublic comments on the IE’s report, and submitted its final report7 to the ICANN Boardon 8 June 2010. On 25 January 2011 the Board approved8 a set of routing type path#1.j8Page 12 of 65
ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee Assessmentsteps”9 based on that report, and in July and August 2012 a working group of theRSSAC and members of the Board’s Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) wasformed to draft a revised RSSAC charter. On 11 April 2013 the Board adopted10 anamendment to ICANN’s bylaws modifying the RSSAC charter11 to reflect the results ofthe organizational review.II.1.2 RecommendationsThe 2010 RWG report assessed the 8 recommendations from the IE and proposedimplementation actions (and actors) for each of them. These are the “implementationsapproved by the ICANN Board from the first RSSAC Review”, and as such are thefocus of our current assessment of the implementation state of that prior review.The RWG noted that the first 3 recommendat
Independent Organizational Review This report presents the initial findings of an independent organizational review of the . perceived infringement on their exclusive responsibility for all matters concerning root system operations. The tension between the RSSAC and some of its member
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 United States of America Amy Stathos (amy.stathos@icann.org) Tel: 1 310 301 3866 Elizabeth Le (elizabeth.le@icann.org) Tel: 1 310 578 8902 3. ICANN is not represented by outside c
ICANN Board of Directors c/o Mr. Steve Crocker, Chair 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Re: Expert Opinion of Prof. William N. Eskridge, Jr., in Support of dotgay’s Community Priority Application Dear Chairman Crocker and Members of the ICANN Board: We are writi
