[CRISP-TEAM] the initial draft announcement

[Sweeting, John]

On 12/16/14, 4:23 PM, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

>CRISP Team,
>
>
>I brain stormed information to be included in the initial draft
>announcement.
>
>Anything else you can think of?
>I hope to confirm on the 3rd call.
>
> * The deadline:
>    - Three days before (1/2) for as the 2nd draft?
>      or Other suggestions?
> * Mention about how we handle late comments or not?
> * Link to the proposal document
> * Key points we worked on:
>    - SLA and AoC
>    - MONC
>    - details to be refered to Craig's PDF
> * Overall schedule
> * Ref: proposals from each RIR region
>
>"Key points we worked" is important in agreeing details, so I drafted
>specific description, to be revised with your feedback. Thanks!
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>The key points CRIPS Team has worked are on regional differences we
>observed on two points. Please see "Summary of RIR proposals" for more
>details.
>
> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Summary-of-RIR-proposals.pdf
>

Is it possible to edit and correct the summary? ARIN¹s proposal dated 21
November 2014 was published to ARIN¹s transition list and made available
on the NRO-IANAXFER list on November 28 yet this summary does not mention
it nor does it compare it in the chart.


>1. Agreement to be exchanged with the IANA function operator.
>
>   Differences:
>    - RIPE community believes it is desirable to have a single SLA, and
>      not AoC
>    - Other communities propose AoC and SLA
>
>   Proposal:
>    - Exchange an agreement which can serve as SLA with the IANA
>      function operator
>    - While there will be no document called AoC, intended contents of
>      AoC will be reflected in the same agreement which covers SLA
>
>   Rationale:
>    - All regions agree about the need for SLA
>    - As long as contents of AoC is reflected, it does not matter
>      whether a seperate document, or merged with SLA document
>
>
>2. Oversight body/fuction
>
>    Differences:
>    -  LACNIC community prefers to have a broader based
>       community group to review the performance of the
>       IANA functions. Multi-stakeholder Oversight Numbers
>       Council(MONC) is proposed.
>    -  Some of the RIRs believe that MONC is complex and
>       overly burdensome, to oversee the performance of a contract
>       (over the past 12 months, the IANA functions operator has
>       performed only eight transactions for the RIRs.)
>
>    Proposal:
>    - The NRO (as the umbrella body through which all the
>      RIRs will enter into any proposed contract with the IANA
>      functions operator) can commit to convening a broad based
>      community group, in a manner similar to the creation of the CRISP
>      team
>    - This will be done on an annual basis, to advise and report to
>       the NRO Executive Council on the performance of the SLA during
>       the past year.
>
>    Rationale: (This is my guessing - more than happy to be corrected)
>     - Accomodates to conduct oversight without setting up a seperate
>       entity for this role.
>     - We already have experience from CRISP team on nominations and
>       selection process.
>
>     (Personal observation:I'm not sure if we can say this is more
>      light weight than MONC, if we go through nominations and
>      selection process every year - any different observations?)
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Regards,
>Izumi
>
>_______________________________________________
>CRISP mailing list
>CRISP at nro.net
>https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.