[CRISP-TEAM] Details of the Review Process Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: First Draft

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,


These are some possible points of considerations raised about the review
process.

(snip)
Sec 3, paragraph 5: Describes in general the periodic reviews of the new
IANA numbers function contract between the NRO EC and the functions
operator.  Has the CRISP team considered if the proposed review process
should developed more than is currently drafted?  For example: Should
there be some basic statements about the process details? Such as ...
The review it will be conducted at minimum ever X years?  The review
report will be publicly disclosed and the review committee selection and
process conducted in an open and transparent manner.  If the NRO EC
determines that a change is needed with the IANA numbers function
contract; the RFP for a new contractor will be conducted in a fair, open
and transparent process in line with applicable industry best practices
and standards.  (snip)



Questions to CRISP Team:

- Do you think we should cover all or any of the details listed in the
  proposal to be submitted to ICG?
- If we make the decision not to include any of the details listed as a
  part of the concrete proposal, would you think it's fair to list them
  as possible points of considerations? Or should we not mention at all?

My current preference is:

 - Include details where we can reach consensus as CRISP Team and agree
   to include in the proposal to ICG
 - Mention as a possible points of considerations for details we didn't
   reach an agreement/too detailed to mention as proposal to ICG.

I welcome to hear any other thoughts.





Regards,
Izumi

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship
Proposal: First Draft
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:30:53 -0800
From: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
Reply-To: andrew.dul at quark.net
To: ianaxfer at nro.net

On 12/18/2014 8:01 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>  Draft proposal: https://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-first-draft
>
>  The deadline for providing feedback: 5 January 2015
>  Feedback should be sent to         : <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list
>
Hello CRISP team,

I first want to thank you for the well formed draft you have produced on
a limited time frame.  Now for a few comments.

Regarding the draft:

Sec 3, paragraph 4: Does the CRISP team believe that the existing
agreements (NRO MOU & ASO MOU) between ICANN & the RIRs would be
modified as a result of this transition or that the new IANA SLA would
just be an additional new agreement?

Sec 3, paragraph 5: Describes in general the periodic reviews of the new
IANA numbers function contract between the NRO EC and the functions
operator.  Has the CRISP team considered if the proposed review process
should developed more than is currently drafted?  For example: Should
there be some basic statements about the process details? Such as ...
The review it will be conducted at minimum ever X years?  The review
report will be publicly disclosed and the review committee selection and
process conducted in an open and transparent manner.  If the NRO EC
determines that a change is needed with the IANA numbers function
contract; the RFP for a new contractor will be conducted in a fair, open
and transparent process in line with applicable industry best practices
and standards.

Sec 3, paragraph 6: RIR accountability & oversight within their own
regions is an important consideration during this transition.  Every
stakeholder should consider if the the RIRs themselves are appropriately
accountable to their members and stakeholders.   Furthermore, one should
consider if a periodic review of the RIR's accountability to their
members should be reviewed on a periodic basic and what form that formal
review should take.

Sec 6: While I believe the current draft reflects the discussion that
took place within the RIR's regions (for those sections which have
text), section 6 is missing details about the formation of the CRISP
team, the team's processes and methods for developing, publishing,
receiving feedback from stakeholders, and determining consensus on the
final draft.  (See my comments below for my suggestions on process as
you continue)

Regarding the CRISP process:

I'd like to suggest that the team post the 2nd draft to the mailing list
within an email in text format to facilitate discussion of the draft on
the mailing list.

I'd also like to suggest that the team consider a couple of real-time
events to facilitate discussion.  An open global conference call and/or
global txt chat in a couple of different time zones to accommodate all
members of the Internet community might be helpful to spawning robust
discussion.  Perhaps these could be arranged shortly after the release
of the 2nd draft.

How will the CRISP team determine support for the final draft from the
global number resource community?   Will there be a call for statements
of support or some other mechanism for members of the community note
their support or lack thereof for the final draft?  Or a mechanism for
stakeholders to lodge specific comments on the final draft, which would
be passed to the ICG team?  The mailing-list has been very quiet so far,
and the discussion has mostly centered on the IPR issues and not the
general content of the draft RFP.  (Which could mean that the team did a
good job of capturing the needs of the community, but it would be good
to get positive confirmation of this fact, if it is true.)  There are
currently 120 people subscribed to this list, based upon the subscriber
listing on the archives.

Again, thanks for the work so far and I look forward to continuing the
discussion.

Thanks,
Andrew



_______________________________________________
ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer at nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer