[CRISP-TEAM] draft response to the combined proposal

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Aug 6 13:37:04 CEST 2015

Hi Andrei, all,

On 2015/08/06 16:53, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> Hi,
>> On 5 aug 2015, at 19:30, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Attached is a draft response to the first 4 (yes, could not resist! ;)
> Fabulous! :)

I know, super!

> I agree with all points you've put together. Possible additions:

Yup, all the points listed are good and compact.

This isn't necessarily just for Q1-4 and as a general point but before I forget - (For Q12 for example)

Do we want to clarify that we have intentionally put more focus on how the combine proposal affects the numbers community proposal, as this is the area we can respond with sufficient expertise.
We leave it to those who know better about the other two IANA functions on how the combined proposal affects them.

>> questions. Below is a summary:
>> Cheers,
>> Andrei
>> 1. Completeness and clarity:
>> - No dependency on the CCWG accountability mechanisms
>> - Clear requirements and level of detail for the implementation items to
>> be completed
> The ICG report and executive summary accurately reflect the numbers proposal. 

It would be good if we can explain how the proposal has sufficient details which can be evaluated against NTIA's requirements.
e.g. are clearly described in the Section V?
>> 2. Compatibility and interoperability:
>> - No compatibility issues wrt the IANA-related IPR as long ss the domain
>> names community and the protocol parameters community can accommodate
>> the specified requirements as part of their implementation
> (Do we want to say something about that there are no incompatibilities as currently written? As we know the CWG are looking to change their position from not having a position to developing a new one?)

Yes. Would be good to explicitly state so.

>> - No interoperability issues with new structures, since they are scoped
>> for names function
>> - Stress need to continuing coordination

Excellent response overall on this question.

>> 3. Accountability:
>> - Accountability mechanism based on a contract and the ability to chose
>> another IFO if need arises

I would put more emphasise on that fact that we have exchanged SLA, which ensures legally that IFO meets the expectations.

>> - This mechanism is separate and independent from the accountability
>> mechanisms proposed by the two other operational communities.

I would phrase this more as each of the two operational communities have come up with the accountability mechanisms relevant for their functions, which allows the overall proposal to cover accountability of the three IANA functions as a whole.

This could be a related argument to back up to state that we observe no gaps in accountability of the single proposal.
(which is one of the questions being asked)

> I suggest we also say something about the RIR community's well tested, longstanding, community-driven and mature structures. 

Very good point. Strongly support adding this.
Many don't know that there are RIR communities behind the RIRs, so would be good to stress on that, in relation to the above point.

>> 4. Workability:
>> - This proposal does not propose any new technical or operational
>> methods with regards to the IANA number function.
>> - Coordination is necessary in the overlapping areas
>> - Good track record

I actually wasn't sure how we could interpret this question especially on "any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the operational community proposals"

We can perhaps add:
Our proposal is workable as clearly indicated from the fact that the SLA and Review Committee Charter draft is ready. 
On PTI, we may want to re-emphasize that we consider it workable given it brings the current IANA as it is to the PTI, minimum changes, except what is needed to set up the organization.

I hope make comment makes sense and let me know if there is anything unclear.
Thanks again for this efficient good work!


> Agree!
> Nurani 
> (Still on a flakey wifi so not sure when I can connect back again.)
>> <CRISP response to combined proposal.docx>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

More information about the CRISP mailing list