[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: RE: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Mon Apr 6 12:22:45 CEST 2015
The CRISP Team,
I'd like to share the response from the CWG-Stewardship Co-Chairs for the Names.
They suggests a teleconference among the chairs this time, i.e., Jonathan, Lise, Alan and myself.
This sounds like a pragmatic suggestion to me at this stage. I will send back a quick ack saying I will consult with the CRISP Team.
Below is my draft suggestion on how we respond:
- Thank them for the time and consideration, happy to accept the suggestion
- As Alan will no longer be a member of the CRISP Team, we suggest a date after we elect Vice-Chair
- Suggest to invite ICG representatives from the names and the numbers
(their attendance is not a must but allow them to join if they wish)
- Suggest this not to be just one time: request Co-Chairs of CWG-Stewardship for update when there are concrete discussions related to the numbers community/our proposal
(and hear any other suggestions they may have)
- Do the same from our side, to receive feedback at early stage
IPR issue: something we already raised in Singapore and they are aware
In addition, the option of changing the IANA operator from ICANN, FAQ & Slides in development
- Myself and Vice-Chair will report the CRISP Team on key updates.
We consult our respective communities on anything which needs decisions.
I welcome your feedback online and let's discuss it in the CRISP Team call this week as well.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: RE: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 09:57:04 +0100
From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Reply-To: jrobinson at afilias.info
To: 'Izumi Okutani' <izumi at nic.ad.jp>, 'Lise Fuhr' <lise.fuhr at difo.dk>
CC: 'Alan Barrett' <apb at cequrux.com>
Thank-you for this letter and for the brief follow-up discussion in person
The CWG-Stewardship meeting in Istanbul was comprehensive and productive.
Lise and I chose to wait until after this meeting to respond to your note
because we wanted to share with you the outcome of this meeting. In our
Chairs' Statement <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-29-en> ,
you will see that the group made significant progress on both the
operational and structural components of the names proposal, through the
Design Team working methodology and retention of independent legal
In terms of our timeline, we have moved our public comment launch date to 20
April, with a final submission to the ICG anticipated for the ICANN 53
meeting in Buenos Aires. We have adjusted our timeline per request by our
chartering organizations in order that they have enough time to ensure
consensus support for the names proposal within their respective communities
and using their specific processes.
We recognize your concerns regarding the possibility that our proposal might
affect the numbers community and we are very open to discussions with you
and the CRISP team in advance of our submission to ICG. However, we have not
yet finalized a proposal and our legal advisors are working with us to
analyse the implications of the so called internal model. Therefore, our
suggestion at this stage is to have a call with you and Alan to give an
overview of where we are and consider any possible implications for the
We remain available to respond to any questions you or your community may
have, and appreciate your interest in and support for the names community as
we all work to achieve a successful IANA Stewardship Transition.
Jonathan and Lise
From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi at nic.ad.jp]
Sent: 22 March 2015 04:58
To: Jonathan Robinson; Lise Fuhr
Cc: Alan Barrett
Subject: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related
Dear Jonathan and Lise,
I am writing to you as Chair of the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship
Proposal (CRISP) team, responsible for preparation of the numbers
community's response to the ICG's Request for Proposals.
It was helpful to have the update on the CWG for Naming Related Functions
progress at the session in Singapore, including the revised timeline of the
process proposed by the CWG-Names, with a CWG-Names proposal submission in
June later this year. This revised timeline increases the need for
collaborative and constructive work in the ICG as well as between all three
stakeholder communities to progress efficiently with the timeline. We remain
positive that a proposal satisfactory to all parties, can be produced
through this process.
The ICG's decision to seek proposals from the three separate affected
communities reflects the distinct needs, mechanisms and historical
development of these three communities. At the same time, developing a
proposal that satisfactorily addresses stewardship of all the IANA functions
is a priority for all parties.
With this in mind, I would like to request that the Chairs of the CWG-Names
communicate directly to the Chair and Vice-Chair of the CRISP team,
regarding any proposals or developments that might affect the numbers
community in advance, and not wait for the final submission to the ICG.
This level of direct communication and collaboration will allow all
communities to consider the impact and potential compatibility issues among
the proposals ahead of the ICG consolidation process, consult appropriately
within their communities, and, if necessary, develop appropriate responses
efficiently, rather than wait for inputs from the numbers community after
the ICG consolidates proposal from all the operational communities. Such
bottom-up consideration by all communities will be essential to the
authority and success of any final proposal to the NTIA.
I look forward to hearing of your continued progress, and to work
collaboratively with you to achieve a successful outcome for all, of the
IANA Stewardship transition.
Izumi Okutani, Alan Barrett
CRISP Team Chair, Vice-Chair
More information about the CRISP