At-Large Workspace: DRAFT PTI and IANA FY21 Operating Plan and Budgets
Public Comment Close | Statement | Status | Assignee(s) | Call for | Call for | Vote Open | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Hide the information below, please click here
FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).
Comments
I think Eduardo is right.
Maybe we can turn that to a question?
Proposal
"This evolution involves a big change in the governance of the Root Servers. Did these changes can have any consequences (short, medium or long term) to the PTI and IANA Operating Plan and Budgets? DID ICANN, PTI and IANA need to be ready to take on board any additional Root Server?"
Based on the previous comments:
The proposed PTI and IANA FY21 Operating Plan and Budgets are aligned with the strategic plan of ICANN, and also very similar to previous years' budgets. An adjustment in the PTI budget is noticeable, including adjustments in salaries, services and other administrative cross-charges from ICANN to PTI or IANA.
However, the last paragraph of the executive summary reads:
"In FY21, PTI expects to deliver a comprehensive set of systems and tools to support protocol parameter assignment workflows following a multi-year development effort. This investment will enhance the way service is delivered to the Internet standards community by providing modern interfaces and request management. Other areas of activity include continued evolution of the Root Zone Management System (RZMS) to cater for customer demand, as well as ongoing enhancement to the IANA website and continuous iteration on the root zone key management software and facilities. ICANN initiatives and their timing will inform aspects of this work that contain a significant IANA component, such as variant top level domains (TLDs) and the subsequent procedures for new generic TLD (gTLD) delegations."
In August of this year, community comment was requested regarding the evolution of the Root Zone Management System, based on RSSAC 037 and RSSAC 038. The ALAC provided a statement in response to the ICANN Public Comment on Evolving the Governance of the Root Server System accordingly.
This evolution involves a big change in the governance of the Root Servers. But these changes are not reflected in the proposed PTI and IANA FY21 Operating Plan and Budgets. Did these changes can have any consequences (short, medium or long term) to the PTI and IANA Operating Plan and Budgets? Did ICANN, PTI and IANA need to be ready to take on board any additional Root Server?
Quote: This evolution involves a big change in the ownership and maintenance of the Root Servers.But these changes are not reflected in the proposed PTI and IANA FY21 Operating Plan and Budgets, which will ultimately handle these servers.
I believe the big change with Root Servers has to do with mostly with its governance and not ownership. Also, It is my understanding that IANA does not handle any of these servers. These are independently managed. So, this statement needs work since is not 100% correct.