Historical Resolution Tracking Feature » SAC063, SAC073 and SAC102 regarding the DNSSEC Key Rollover in the Root Zone
Important note: The explanatory text provided through this database (including the summary, implementation actions, identification of related resolutions, and additional information) is an interpretation or an explanation that has no official authority and does not represent the purpose behind the Board actions, nor does any explanations or interpretations modify or override the Resolutions themselves. Resolutions can only be modified through further act of the ICANN Board.
SAC063, SAC073 and SAC102 regarding the DNSSEC Key Rollover in the Root Zone
Whereas, on 7 November 2013, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC063: SSAC Advisory on DNSSEC Key Rollover in the Root Zone, regarding performing the first root zone key signing key (KSK) rollover.
Whereas, on 5 October 2015 the SSAC published SAC073: SSAC Comments on Root Zone Key Signing Key Rollover Plan - Design Teams Draft Report.
Whereas, on 24 June 2017, the ICANN Board accepted the advice of SAC063 and SAC073 based on ICANN org's analysis and directed the org to implement per the org's recommendation.
Whereas, on 13 May 2018, after the initial KSK Rollover was delayed, in Resolution 2018.05.13.09, the ICANN Board asked SSAC for advice on how to continue forward.
Whereas, on 20 August 2018, SSAC published SAC102: SSAC Comment on the Updated Plan for Continuing the Root KSK Rollover, advising ICANN org to continue with the rollover.
Whereas, on 16 September 2018, the ICANN Board accepted this advice and directed ICANN org to proceed with the KSK rollover as described in the "Updated Plan for Continuing the Root KSK Rollover".
Whereas on 11 October 2018, ICANN org successfully completed the first rollover of the root zone KSK.
Resolved (2021.05.12.16), the Board finds that ICANN org acted upon all Recommendations from SAC063, SAC073, and SAC102, as is evidenced by the successful first KSK Rollover. The Board considers SAC063, SAC073, and SAC102 to be completed.
1. Why is the Board addressing the issue?
On 8 March 2013, ICANN org opened a Public Comment period seeking feedback with respect to the execution of a root zone Key Signing Key (KSK) rollover. On 7 November 2013, SSAC published SAC063, which contains five recommendations for the ICANN org related to rolling the root zone KSK.
The draft report from the Design Team convened by ICANN org to make recommendations on the first root zone KSK rollover went into Public Comment on 6 August 2015. SSAC commented on this report by publishing SAC073 on 5 October 2015. This document reiterated the recommendations in SAC063 and called for each to be addressed in the final version of the Design Team's report, which was eventually published on 7 March 2016 as the Root Zone KSK Rollover Plan.
On 27 September 2017, the ICANN org announced it was postponing the root zone KSK rollover and on 17 October 2017 published a paper entitled "Postponing the Root KSK Roll."
On 13 May 2018, in Resolution 2018.05.13.09, the ICANN Board requested that SSAC provide advice to the Board on the Updated Plan for Continuing the Root KSK Rollover due to the rollover's postponement. SSAC delivered the advice on 21 August 2018 in SAC102 which concluded that "the SSAC has not identified any reason within the SSAC's scope why the rollover should not proceed as currently planned."
ICANN org carried out the first rollover of the root zone KSK on 11 October 2018. The project is documented in a report written by the Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) entitled "Review of the 2018 DNSSEC KSK Rollover." By all accounts the first root zone KSK rollover was a success.
This Board Paper demonstrates ICANN org's completion of work on SAC063, SAC073 and SAC102's recommendations. As a result, the Board is now directing that the remaining items related to these three advisories being tracked in the ICANN org Action Request Registry may be closed, at the recommendation of the Board Technical Committee (BTC).
2. What is the proposal being considered?
The Board is considering a recommendation from the BTC that the ICANN Board direct that the remaining items related to SAC063, SAC073, and SAC102 being tracked in the ICANN org Action Request Registry may be closed.
3. Which stakeholders or others were consulted?
The SSAC agreed that ICANN org has fulfilled its role in implementing the Recommendations of this Advisory.
4. What concerns or issues were raised by the community?
None.
5. What significant materials did the Board review?
In determining that the remaining items related to SAC063, SAC073, and SAC102 being tracked in the ICANN org Action Request Registry may be closed, the Board considered the recommendation of the BTC and the rationale from ICANN org demonstrating that work on these remaining items is now complete as evidenced by the successful completion of the KSK Rollover.
6. Are there positive or negative community impacts?
This Board resolution confirms that the Advisory's recommendations were completed by ICANN org and does not assess the impacts of the implementation of the recommendations.
7. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?
No fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN, the community, or the public are expected as a result of closing these remaining SAC063, SAC073, and SAC102 items.
8. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?
No security, stability, or resiliency issues relating to the Domain Name System (DNS) are expected as a result of closing these remaining SAC063, SAC070, and SAC102 items.
9. Is this decision in the public interest and within ICANN's mission?
Yes. Confirming the completion of the implementation of an Advisory provides an accountability mechanism for ICANN's work, which is in the public interest and within ICANN's mission.
10. Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?
This action does not require public comment.