[CRISP-TEAM] draft response to the combined proposal

[Sweeting, John]

Hi Izumi and team

Please find my crack at Q5 & 6. Comments and edits welcome.

Who will put the final document together?

Thanks,
John

On 8/6/15, 7:37 AM, "crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of Izumi Okutani"
<crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

>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!
>
>
>Izumi
>
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CRISP mailing list
>CRISP at nro.net
>https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20150806 -CRISP team response to combined proposal Q5 and Q6.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 95010 bytes
Desc: 20150806 -CRISP team response to combined proposal Q5 and Q6.docx
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150806/067ba67a/20150806-CRISPteamresponsetocombinedproposalQ5andQ6-0001.docx>