[CRISP-TEAM] General points to note Re: Preparation for comment for the ICG proposal

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,


Below is some very preliminary high level point which came to mind mind to focus per question.
This is only for starting point of discussions. 

Please feel free to any other points you think are important in our general response/per question.

Based on this, in parallel, I'd like to start calling for volunteers in drafting our response per question.
I haven't gone into bullet points of contents per questions, which I think would be better for the volunteers to work on.


---
Q1. Completeness and clarity
Q11. ICG report and executive summary accurately reflect all necessary aspects of the overall proposal
• Observation with focus on the numbers community proposal
• Leave it to other operational communities for their elements
(For Q.1 We may be able to state IETF is not proposing changes therefore likely to sufficient to implement)

Q2. Compatibility and interoperability
• Observations with focus on the numbers community proposal
• If no compatibilities observed, explain why we observe no incompatibilities
• Additional consideration:
  Clarify the conditions of incompatibilities if the proposal is changed in certain ways, especially on PTI and IPR
 (Perhaps reference our comment to the CWG public comment)

Q3. Accountability
• Observation with focus on the numbers community proposal
• In addition, we would be able to say that accountability is supported independently per IANA functions and works for the three functions, no gap under the single proposal
  (While if we identify a serious gap, we need to point it out)

Q4. Workability:
• Same as Q.3, with focus on workability
• Additional note: I assume the focus may be more on operational aspects.
[I'm not totally clear about the difference from Q2 and may be worth clearing with Alan and Paul Wilson as the ICG members from the NRO]

Q5. Supports and enhances the multistakeholder model
Q6. Maintains the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS
Q7. Meets the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services
Q8. Maintains the openness of the Internet
Q9. Any concerns that the proposal is replacing NTIA’s role with a government-led or inter-governmental organization solution

• Observation with focus on the numbers community proposal
• If possible, it would be useful if we could add observation for an overall single proposal without going into details of the other two individual proposals

Q10. The implementation of the proposal will continue to uphold the NTIA criteria in the future
• Observations with focus on the numbers community proposal
This is likely to need additional considerations and discussions within the CRISP Team on how we explain

Q12. Any general comments for the ICG about the proposal
• Anything we want to note, including the process?
• Perhaps the need of emphasis that the process was bottom up, in addition to the contents, importance of continuing the efforts to meet the timelines, including the implementation
---

Izumi

On 2015/08/03 19:48, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> 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
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>