[CRISP-TEAM] [Feedback] CRISP Team Statement: Our role and the next steps
german at apnic.net
Fri Apr 10 17:18:04 CEST 2015
I don’t think is there any problem in changing this content.
I’ll do the update based on the received feedback and changing
- CRISP proposal / Number Community Proposal
- Separability / The ability to chose the IANA Numbering Services operator
=On 10 Apr 2015, at 6:31 pm, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp<mailto:izumi at nic.ad.jp>> wrote:
Thank you Andrei again for another good point.
I agree with your suggestion. I think using the word "seperability" gives the misleading impression we are so keen to get away from ICANN.
I quoted the term "seperability" from the NRO website - should we suggest to change this as well?
As another wording in the NRO Website, I also wish to change the word "the CRISP proposal" to "the numbers community proposal". "The CRISP proposal" gives the impression that only the CRISP team was involved, which wasn't the case. We were simply involved in the final phase of drafting the document, reflecting the consensus of our commnity.
German, or CRISP Team members from RIR, would you advice us whether it is possible to make such suggestion from the CRISP Team?
I realised I fastfowarded the deadline for comments to 13:00 - sorry this is wrong.
I continue to welcome comments until UTC15:00 as originally mentioned.
Subject: Next Steps in the Process and the Community Engagement
As a follow up from APNIC39 Conference which was held in Fukuoka in March 2015, which discussed the next steps on preparation of implementation for the numbers proposal, summary of major discussion points are now available from the NRO website.
I would like to highlight three key points from the meeting.
1. The ability to choose the IANA Numbering Services operator
In course of developing the SLA, it was consulted at the meeting whether the ability to choose the IANA Numbering Services operator is a critical and essential part of the SLA contract.
It was confirmed at the meeting that :
- The ability to choose the IANA Numbering Services operator is seen as one of the most important elements in ensuring the accountability of the IANA numbering function operator.
- As defined in the numbers community proposal, the possibility of changing the operator from ICANN in the future should remain open, which is expected to be reflected in the SLA.
- APNIC confirmed that the RIR would work on an SLA that is consistent with the numbers community proposal, to reflect the intention of the community.
2. Transparency in providing feedback on the implementation
- The proposal consolidated by the CRISP Team was developed based on the requirements wannounced by the NTIA in March 2014, with consensus from the numbers community.
Therefore, in case there are any concerns for implementation to be consistent with the numbers community proposal, including the ability to choose an operator for the IANA numbering services, it should be
communicated to the community's attention in a transparent manner.
3. Future steps in the community consultation on implementation
- The plan is to carry the community consultation over the course of the coming months at the RIR meetings - this APNIC meeting is the first of these.
- During this period, all regions will have the chance to discuss issues relevant to the drafting of the SLA.
- After all the regional consultations are complete and all these processes have run their course, we should have a final agreed SLA as the outcome, which would then be part of the implementation of the numbers community proposal.
From this stage, the RIRs will be responsible in preparing implementation of the IANA stewardship transition for the IANA Numbering Services and consulting with the community on its implementation as needed, based on the numbers community proposal.
In preparation for implementation, RIRs will be consulting with the community at the coming RIR meetings, as well as on the global ianaxfer at nro.net<mailto:ianaxfer at nro.net> and each regional mailing lists as when appropriate.
The CRISP Team have completed its role of developing the community based proposal for the IANA Numbering Services after its submission to the ICG but continues to be engaged in :
- Clarifying the intention of the proposal to the RIRs in preparing its implementation, in transparent manner with the community
- Share observation to the RIRs on community feedback received about implementation, whether it is consistent with the proposal
- Follow up with the RIRs on the status and latest timeline of the preparation of implementation
As the next RIR meeting, where the community will be consulted on the status of implementation, ARIN35 Meeting will be held in San Francisco with a CRISP Panel at 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-7) Monday, 13 April, 2015.
Panelists will report on the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team's proposal, which was submitted to the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group, as well as talk about current status and the next steps.
Online participation is possible for those who cannot attend the meeting physically, and I encourage the community members to join the community consultation at ARIN35.
Chair, the CRISP Team
On 2015/04/10 16:51, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
Thank you very much, Izumi, for your response.
Izumi Okutani wrote on 10/04/15 07:31:
Therefore, in case there are any concerns for implementation to
be consistent with the numbers community proposal, including reflecting
the seperability of the IANA Numbering Services operator, it should be
communicated to the
community's attention in a transparent manner.
I suggest a slight modification:
"Therefore, in case there are any concerns regarding consistency of the
implementation with the numbers community proposal, ..."
I have a little discomfort with the "separability" term, although I
understand it has become part of the IANA lingua franca. Cannot we
simply say (for instance in your first point):
- The ability to choose an operator for the IANA numbering services is
seen as one of the most important elements in ensuring the
accountability of the IANA numbering function operator.
and continue using this throughout our communication?
This will mitigate a possible perception that we definitely want to
separate these services from ICANN, which is not the case, I believe.
CRISP mailing list
CRISP at nro.net<mailto:CRISP at nro.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CRISP