[CRISP-TEAM] Checking points before initial draft publish

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Tue Dec 16 20:49:25 CET 2014

Alan and all,

While waiting for revised draft, I would like to proceed in parallel to 
prepare for final checking before we share the initial draft.

Alan, I wonder if you would be able to help me in double checking, on 
the points we should cover in the draft?

Feedback from other members of the CRISP team would be very welcome as 
well ofcourse.

These are the points I checked and confirmed.

My general impression is:

  - We are good on I
  - Do we not need a reference to global policies be added to II?
  - Need to re-confirm whether III sufficiently describes the suggested
    changes based on Craig's summary and LACNIC's ideas
    ## May I confirm which part describes the AoC element to be
       incorporated as SLA? ##
  - Needs edits/additional description on V and VI
    ## Need information from AFRINIC, ARIN, LACNIC regions for VI##

I'll create seperate threads for parts I noticed based on this review 
and needs feedbacks.

I. Description of Community’s Use of IANA
* All of the services are covered and described
    - IPv6, IPv4, ASN, reverse zone delegations
    - RPKI may be, if we stretch, but I don't see the need to add at
   this point, given there is no single global TA from IANA

* Overlaps with other communities
    - special purpose values in the numbers resources stated as IETF's
    - suggested revision from Andrei to be reflected

II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements

* It seems to me we haven't addressed this question
   "If there are distinct sources of policy or policy development for
    different IANA activities, then please describe these separately."
   - shouldn't we refer to global policies for IPv4, IPv6 and ASN ?

   - Suggestion: I'll create a seperate thread to confirm this point.
* Are we able to show we have a clearly defined, transparent, and
   open PDP? -yes
* dispute mechanism - if considered accurate by RIR staff, fine by me

B. Oversight and Accountability
* Clarify NTIA currently doesn't have an oversight role
* Describe we have MoU with ICANN on gPDP but not on the IANA function
   latter part is we reply on NTIA's stewardship
* RIRs' accountability matrix is mentioned

III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability
* Is the concept/principles clearly explained, in addition to
* Clearly states ICANN to continue as IANA operator - yes
* Is the concept based on Craig's summary reflected?
    - May I confirm which part describes the AoC element to be i
      ncorporated as SLA?
* Anything additional to add based on ideas shared from LACNIC?
    - to confirm with LACNIC

IV. Transition Implications
* Clarify the part affected would be on accountability of the service 
level of the IANA functions

V.NTIA Requirements
* This section looks like more work need to be done, in my impression.

* It's important to clearly show we are meeting NTIA's requirements, so
   it may be worth considering putting answers according to the order
   described in the ICG template.
   (May not be immediately obvious, which of the answers listed as 1.-6.
    in the draft answers each questions put by ICG template below)

   - Suggestion: list answers according to order below
                 (i.e, follow the same order as ICG template).

1. Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
2. Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
3. Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners 
of the IANA services;
4. Maintain the openness of the Internet.
5. The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or 
an inter-governmental organization solution.

* we describe the current model well, not sure how much we manged to
   explain about "enhance" the multistakeholder model
    --> Suggestion: add description about the NRO representatives to
        review IANA SLA

VI. Community Process
* Need information on AFRINIC, ARIN, LACNIC regions.



More information about the CRISP mailing list