[CRISP-TEAM] Feedback appreciated: esp if you have different understanding (Re: Common Understanding & Clarifications)

[Izumi Okutani]

Dear Andres,


Thank you for your feedback and I'm happy to know you agree with the 
descriptions, including the part about the Review Committee.



All CRISP Team members,

I would appreciate your feeback, especially if you have different 
understanding from what's described here.

(Priority should go to checking the announcement and the latest draft 
proposal to be sent from Michael - this can be wait to be reviewed after 
we make the announcement)

I updated one point from the version, to reflect the removal of global 
PDP from our proposal.


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. 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. Review Committee
     - Gives credibilities to the review of SLA to be conducted by the
       NRO EC, on the number resources related IANA function services

Other consideration we made
  d. Remove ICANN Board's approval on Global Policies
     - This was suggested and discussed at the 3rd call but agreed to
       remove this proposal at the 4th call
     - We shouldn't mix global PDP with IANA operations as they are
       seperate issues and it is not a part of the NTIA stewardship
       transition. Hence out of scope of our work.
     - It was also considered not appropriate for CRISP team to propose
       about ASO MoU, without going throught the standard, bottom up
       process. This will make it top-down, against our principles.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------


(2014/12/18 22:14), Andres Piazza wrote:
> Dear Izumi,
>
> I believe this common understanding is very useful. I can agree with this.
>
> The same applies your clarifications of the Review Committee.
>
> Andres
>
> El 12/18/14 5:57 AM, Izumi Okutani escribi�:
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp