[CRISP-TEAM] the initial draft announcement

[Izumi Okutani]

(2014/12/17 6:34), Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Izumi Okutani wrote on 16/12/14 22:23:
>> 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
> 
> I am not sure we discussed this in detail, but in my opinion the key
> point here is whether we consider the relationship between the RIRs and
> the IANA operator as customer - service provider, or peers. In the
> former case a contract with SLAs seems more appropriate, in the latter -
> the AoC.
> 
> The view of customer-provider relationship also matches the IETF position.

I see. Thanks for sharing this. Helpful to know including the IETF
position.

It makes sense to me broadly.
What do other members think about it?

It's still not totally clear to me on how we ensure ICANN, as the
operator of IANA will act transparently and accountable, which I
understood as the initial intention of the AoC - CRISP team, quite
likely I'm wrong, so please correct me in that case.

Do we say this will be addressed in ICANN Accountabilty CCWG or
do we consider this is not important we care? etc.

I don't have a strong opinion about this - just trying to figure out how
we explain to the communities once we publish the draft.


> We may still consider an AoC or an MoU with the IETF covering shared IP
> registry management and reverse DNS, but it is a separate issue.

Yes. I agree it's a seperate issue. It also is important to address.

Question: Do we want to describe this in the proposal?
My initial instict is, it may make it confusing, it it's not a current
arrangement and not related to IANA.

What do you, Andrei, and anyone else think?


Regards,
Izumi