[cooperation-wg] consensus on the NTIA-IANA proposal

On 5.06.14 13:41 , Jim Reid wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2014, at 11:35, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
>> Unfortunate choice of words. I assume what was intended was something
>> like "RIPE and RIPE NCC are not interested in the oversight of
>> maintenance of the DNS root zone."
> 
> While I'm not going to put words in your mouth Daniel,
it seems likely that the DNS WG part of RIPE may well disagree with the
above. :-) ....

While anything is possible that would be a new development.

The RIPE community has always taken great care to stay well clear of the
**oversight** of the DNS and the **maintenance** of the DNS root zone.
Indeed we have sometimes chosen to give our views and advice on these
matters. We have done that when decisions in that area affected our
community. However to my knowledge we have never seriously considered to
get involved with the *governance* of the DNS. Personally I have always
agreed that we should leave this area to others. In retrospect I
consider this to be one of the key decisions that contributed to the
success and credibility of RIPE. But of course we can decide otherwise.
I just hope we do not do this without careful consideration.

Of course this is completely the other way around when it comes to
Internet number resources. Here we firmly want to play a significant
role in the *governance* while taking the views and advice of others
into consideration. As I said at the previous WG meeting: I consider it
absolutely necessary that we speak with one voice about the governance
in the numbers area and about the implementation of that part of the
IANA service. If we cannot achieve that, our community and our processes
loose a lot of their credibility.

At the present time we should avoid to discuss anything but the numbers
part. It will help us focus and it will prevent confusion.

Daniel