[CRISP-TEAM] Common Understanding & Clarifications

Andres Piazza andres at lacnic.net
Thu Dec 18 14:14:47 CET 2014

Dear Izumi,

I believe this common understanding is very useful. I can agree with this.

The same applies your clarifications of the Review Committee.


El 12/18/14 5:57 AM, Izumi Okutani escribió:
> CRISP Team,
> As you will be explaining rationale behind CRISP Team proposal
> within your regional communities, it probably helps to have a common
> understanding among CRISP team.
> This is the rationale I summarised based on observations of discussions
> by the team. It is not intended to share this publicly, to just as a
> reference for a common understanding among us.
> * Please let me know if there is anything which is different
>    from your undestanding, or wish to further clarify.
> * Please raise questions if there is anything you are not clear about
>    any proposal elements
> For the purpose of preparing the proposal for tomorrow, there is no need
> to clarify all questions at this stage, as long as people find it
> acceptable about what is being proposed.
> Izumi
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Summary of the current situation
>   What will be affected by NTIA's announcement
>    - NTIA will transfer stewardship on the IANA functions as defined in
>      the IANA contract
>    - AoC, between ICANN and the US goverment remains (not transfered)
> Current RIR legal arrangements with ICANN
>    - Global Policies: ASO MoU
>      Dispute resolution mechanism by the thirty party is defined in the
>      MoU, in case ICANN board is not accountable
>    - IANA function services provided to RIRs
>      No official legal document today: stewardship was considered to be
>      maintained based on IANA contract by the US government
> Proposed elements
>   a. ICANN continues to be the operator of IANA
>   b. Exchange SLA with ICANN on IANA number resources function
>   c. Remove ICANN Board's approval on Global Policies
>   d. Review Committee (Name to be decided)
>      - NRO EC will conduct the review whether ICANN performs the IANA
>        functios on numbers according to SLA
>      - Review Commitee will provide advice to NRO EC as community
>        representives to increase credibility of NRO EC's review, that it
>        has taken in inputs from its communities
>      - Members of the review committee will be selected from each RIR
>        region, with simliar concept/scheme as CRISP Team
>      - Review
>      ## Needs confirmation from LACNIC region if this is correct ##
> Rationale for proposed elements
>   a. ICANN continues to be the operator of IANA
>     - RIRs are satisfied with the current services by ICANN
>     - Continuing with the current operator is desirable, if we are
>       satisfied, for stability of the function
>   b. Exchange SLA with ICANN on IANA number resources function
>     - To clarify relationships that that RIRs are delegating operation
>       of the IANA functions on number resources to ICANN
>       (also consistent rationale with IETF's proposal)
>     - Ensure our expected service level is maintained
>   c. Remove ICANN Board's approval on Global Policies
>      - Here, we need to be able to explain what part about Global
>        Policies approval would be affected
>        (NTIA doesn't play a role in the process)
>      - Why we think the approach of removing ICANN Board's approval is
>        the best, compared to other solutions such as reviewing and
>        strengthening the exising ASO MoU and/or SLA to be developed.
>   d. Review Committee
>      - Gives credibilities to the review of SLA to be conducted by the
>        NRO EC, on the number resources related IANA function services
> Rationale for not adopting some elements proposed on some RIR region(s)
>   e. Reasons for not supporting AoC
>   - The CRISP Team should focus to consider what would be missing as a
>     result of the NTIA IANA stewardship transition
>   - The US goverment keeps the AoC, so there is no need to replace this
>     part
>   - The part that will be missing is the contract related to the IANA
>     functions, which will be covered by SLA between ICANN and RIRs
>   - SLA is sufficient in ensuring to receive the IANA services
>   - Do not see why RIRs must be accountable to ICANN and define in AoC
>     RIRs should be accountantable to its communities, not ICANN
>    On the other hand:
>   - No objections were observed that there may be issues related to
>     ICANN Board's decisions on Global policies
>     (This is inteded to be addressed by c.Remove ICANN Board's approval
>      on Global Policies )
>   f. Reasons for change from MONC to Review Committee
>     - Some of the RIRs believe that MONC is complex and overly
>       burdensome, to oversee the performance of a contract where, over
>       the past 12 months, the IANA functions operator has performed only
>       eight transactions for the RIRs
>     - Have the scheme based on the existing framework
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

More information about the CRISP mailing list