[CRISP-TEAM] Preparation for comment for the ICG proposal (Re: Announcement from the CRISP Team on the ICG proposal)

[Izumi Okutani]

Hi Andrei, all,


> I think we should also be clear regarding the scope of our response (as
> we did before). In my opinion we are still looking at the combined
> proposal purely from the numbers community perspective (as opposed to
> "good for the Internet" - i.e. does the combined proposal work for us?

Very good point. 

> Just to give you an example of what I have in mind. The IANA operator
> accountability matter is solved by different communities differently. So
> as long as our solution (specifically contractual relationship with the
> principles outlined in the proposal) is not affected by the combined
> proposal we can positively answer Q3, regardless of what we think about
> accountability mechanisms suggested by other communities.

I agree to focus on the number community proposal perspective.

At the same time, I personally would like to give assurance that the single proposal works, not just for the IANA Numbering Services, but also as a single proposal, especially on Q.5-Q.9, to give endorsement that the proposal meets the NTIA criteria.

(We are probably saying the same thing, but as much as expressing our perspective, I would like to emphasize on being as supportive as possible on the single proposal)

> I also think we need to be succinct in our response.

Totally agree.

As an additional point to keep in mind, for components such as PTI and IPR, I would like to be clear about the conditions we can agree as no issues/incompatibilities.
(In case ICG needs to change any element of the proposal, based on public comment)

Before we seek for volunteers and start working on details, it may be useful to have common principles/goal we want to keep in mind, in drafting our response.
I've listed some points to note per questions which came to my mind so will share in a separate post, as starting point of discussions.


Izumi


On 2015/08/03 17:28, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Agree with Izumi's and Nurani's comments.
> 
> Nurani Nimpuno wrote on 01/08/15 13:45:
>> However, we might need to agree on the level of depth we want to respond on, and also what other messages we want in our response. 
> 
> I think we should also be clear regarding the scope of our response (as
> we did before). In my opinion we are still looking at the combined
> proposal purely from the numbers community perspective (as opposed to
> "good for the Internet" - i.e. does the combined proposal work for us?
> 
> Just to give you an example of what I have in mind. The IANA operator
> accountability matter is solved by different communities differently. So
> as long as our solution (specifically contractual relationship with the
> principles outlined in the proposal) is not affected by the combined
> proposal we can positively answer Q3, regardless of what we think about
> accountability mechanisms suggested by other communities.
> 
> I also think we need to be succinct in our response.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Andrei
>