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

[Nurani Nimpuno]

Hi,

I'm of course also happy to help draft responses. I'm on holiday this week with very bad wifi, so I might not be able to respond quickly. 

But pleas feel free to assign two questions to me!

Kind regards,

Nurani



> On 3 aug 2015, at 14:00, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> 
> 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
>