<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Jim Reid <<a href="mailto:jim@rfc1035.com">jim@rfc1035.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> So far there has been no discussion on the list about the NTIA proposals about getting the root signed. I would have hoped someone would have said something by now. Sigh. Please try to find some time to look at the NTIA's suggestions and if possible send your comments to the list. I think this WG has an obligation to make some sort of "official" response to the NTIA's consultation. After all, we played our part to get the ball rolling by producing the "sign the root" letter to ICANN at the Tallinn meeting. So now that there are some concrete proposals for consideration, I feel the WG should look at them and respond. I would also welcome suggestions from WG members about how to stimulate a discussion here about the NTIA proposals. Although time has been set aside in the RIPE57 agenda, that won't be enough. The majority of people on this list won't be in Dubai. And besides, it's really the list that should decide the WG's opinion and what action it should take. Over to you.... </blockquote><div> </div></div> Jim, I agree we need to discuss this as a group and am very interested in hearing people's opinions, I feel that the people from this wg should give their opinions both directly to the NTIA but also the dns-wg forming a collective opinion and sending it to the NTIA can only be a good thing. My comments on the proposal(s) are below. Note these are my comments and opinions and not neccesarilly those of my current employer. Brett. I have read the proposals from both ICANN and Verisign and feel there are positive points to be taken from both proposals. I feel that the function of compiling and signing the root zone should be under the stewardship of a non commercial, non profit driven entity who has internet stability and security as their primary concern, therefore I would support moving this function to ICANN . However one point that I would strongly support from the Verisign proposal is the multi user stewardship of the KSK (the M of N principle) I believe ICANN should incorporate something similar to this in their process, however the organizations chosen to be part of this group need to be very carefully chosen, I would suggest that again they should all be non commercial organizations and represent Internet users from all parts of the globe, for this reason I would suggest that maybe the current RIR's (ARIN, AFRINIC, RIPE, LACNIC and APNIC) would be ideal groups to perform this function. As a non US Citizen I do have some concerns as to why this process is being undertaken by a department of the US Government and not an international multi stakeholder based group. I do not have a strong opinion as to what that group should be but it does seem to obvious to me that it should not be tied to one country whoever that country is. Regards