Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Skip to main content

ALAC Statement on the Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies

Last Updated:
Date

Introduction

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, At-Large member from the Asian, Australasian and Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organization (APRALO), composed an initial draft of this Statement [PDF, 231 KB] after discussion of the topic within At-Large and on the Mailing Lists.

On 31 January 2014, this Statement was posted on the At-Large Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies Workspace https://community.icann.org/x/nge6Ag.

On that same day, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, requested ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC to send a Call for Comments on the Recommendations to all At-Large members via the ALAC-Announce Mailing list http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac-announce/2014q1/001461.html.

On 11 February 2014, a version incorporating the comments received was TCRs.There on the aforementioned workspace and the Chair requested that Staff open an ALAC ratification vote on the proposed Statement.

On 18 February 2014, Staff confirmed that the online vote resulted in the ALAC endorsing the Statement with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes against, and 0 abstentions. You may review the result independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=3671kiPvCmIyu7uGxuVFEMwg.

Summary of Answers to questions asked

  1. The current TCR model has been effectively performing its functions of ensuring trust in the KSK management process.
  2. Whilst some believe that the size of the TCR pool is large enough, others believe that the current size needs to be expanded to cater for unforeseen circumstances (includes but is not limited to terrorist attacks, flight disruptions, state of emergency, civil war, etc) that could render a majority of the 21 TCRs unable to attend to their responsibilities. The possibility of having signing at the same time in either the same country or different countries or frequency of signing could also exhaust reserves leading to overburdening these volunteers.
  3. The community believes that TCRs should meet the existing criteria merited of what would comprise a responsible TCR. TCRs should actively engage by writing reports which are made public. Minimum participation should include, attendance, engagement, carrying out responsibilities, writing full and thorough reports and listing concerns if any.
  4. Whilst some believe that the existing pool and their indefinite terms are sufficient and that the 21 TCRs are more than enough, others believe that there is a need for term limits as the original TCR mechanism is silent on the term. There should be a constant requirement to disclose any and all potential conflicts of interest to disable the risk of “capture” by any stakeholder or interest.
  5. Some believe that the current system should be retained although TCRs should be cost-neutral for those not supported by firms or other entities. Others believe in an externally managed fund like the one set-up for the Independent Objector (IO).