[CRISP-TEAM] Updated proposal draft - reordering answers edit
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Tue Dec 23 11:49:53 CET 2014
I agree with all suggested changes with comments inline.
Very helpful that you have taken time to look with suggested changes.
It clarified a few important points and its description.
Michael, I have one request to you which I described inline.
(2014/12/23 18:55), Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Michael, Izumi, Alan - thank you for putting this together! Looks good.
> Below are some comments, starting with some wording suggestions and more
> substantive suggestions further.
>> ...and ASN�s to the RIR�s as well as the delegation of the �INADDR.ARPA� and �IP6.ARPA� domains to match the allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
> ...and ASN�s to the RIR�s as well as the delegation in the �INADDR.ARPA�
> and �IP6.ARPA� DNS tree in accordance with the allocation of IPv4 and
> IPv6 addresses.
Agree. Will update accordingly.
(& also without apostrophes as suggsted by Alan)
>> � Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is affected.
>> The Internet number resource registries.
> I suggest using this simple description throughout the text when
> answering this question
Michael, I'd appreciate it if you could review the draft so we are
consistent throughout the document.
>> However, there are no IANA services or activities related to number resource registries directly affected by NTIA�s stewardship transition.
> I am not sure this is true. The number resource allocation is one of the
> services in the SoW. The fact that NTIA doesn't play any active role in
> the INR distribution doesn't change this fact.
I see your point. This description is too strong.
I'll delete this sentence.
>> A description of how policy is developed and established and who is involved in policy development and establishment.
> This section contains repetitive text and is incomplete. Suggested text:
> The policies under which the IANA operator manages the global pools of
> Internet number resources (excluding those address ranges reserved by
> the IETF for specific technical purposes) are developed and agreed by
> the five RIR communities via open, transparent and bottom-up policy
> development processes. Each RIR community engages in its own regional
> policy development process � these processes are open to all
> stakeholders regardless of specific background or interest. Links to
> each of the five regional PDPs are included under in the RIR Governance
> Matrix published on the NRO website [REF].
> Any individual may submit a global proposal. Each RIR community must
> ratify an identical version of the proposed policy. The NRO Executive
> Council (NRO EC) then refers the coordinated proposal to the ASO Address
> Council (ASO AC), which reviews the process by which the proposal was
> developed and, under the terms of the ASO Memorandum of Understanding,
> passes it to the ICANN Board of Directors for ratification as a global
> There are currently three global policies relating to management of the
> global pools of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses and AS Numbers [REF]:
> (a) IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet
> (b) IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet
> Registries; and
> (c) Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the
> There is a fourth global policy agreed by the RIR communities, ICP-2,
> "Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries".
> The global policy development process described in �Global Policy
> Development Process Document�[REF] is used for all of the number-related
> IANA activities described in Section I, but the policy that
> �IN-ADDR.ARPA� and �IP6.ARPA� domains must be delegated following IPv4
> and IPv6 address allocations is specified by the IETF (most recently in
> RFC 3172).
Many thanks for drafting it. This is good & more clear to the point.
The repetitive part was due to not trying to delete what is already
described but I don't see an issue in deleting, as long as what we want
to explain is all covered.
>> The ASO MoU is an agreement between the RIR communities and ICANN, as the IANA functions operator;
> Suggest dropping "as the IANA functions operator" (in this context ICANN
> doesn't act as the IANA operator)
True. Will delete "as the IANA functions operator".
>> A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA functions, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA functions operator, would not have any significant impact on the continuity of Internet number-related IANA services currently provided by ICANN or the ongoing community processes for development of policies relating to those services. However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from the current system.
> I am not happy that we are mixing operations and policy in one piece, it
> way give an impression that NTIA plays an oversight role in the gPDP.
> Further, while NTIA transition would not have any significant impact on
> the operation, it has no impact on the gPDP.
> A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA
> functions, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA
> functions operator, would not have any significant impact on the
> continuity of Internet number-related IANA services currently provided
> by ICANN. However, it would remove a significant element of oversight
> from the current system.
Agreed with both the text and the rationale (which is very important, as
we discussed in the 4th call).
> Michael Abejuela wrote on 22/12/14 21:13:
>> Hello Everyone,
>> Please find attached the updated proposal draft as discussed during the
>> conference call earlier today. You will observe both a redline version
>> highlighting the changes proposed by myself, Izumi and Alan. In
>> addition, a clean version is attached for ease of review that includes
>> minor formatting changes.
>> Please let me know if you have any questions. Izumi and Alan, I trust I
>> was able to capture all of your edits but please review and let me know
>> if I have missed any. I look forward to the team�s comments.
>> Michael R. Abejuela
>> Associate General Counsel
>> 3635 Concorde Parkway
>> Suite 200
>> Chantilly, VA 20151
>> (703) 227-9875 (p)
>> (703) 263-0111 (f)
>> mabejuela at arin.net <mailto:mabejuela at arin.net>
>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
>> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
>> confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy,
>> use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
>> destroy all copies of the original message.
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP