[CRISP-TEAM] draft response to the combined proposal

[Izumi Okutani]

Hi John,


Thanks very much for this work. 
I added some edits for clarity on what may be intended. Let me know if this makes sense.

> Who will put the final document together?
Good question. Any volunteers? 

If not, I can do it.


Thanks,
Izumi

On 2015/08/07 5:06, Sweeting, John wrote:
> 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: 20150810 -CRISP team response to combined proposal Q5 and Q6_io.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19098 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150810/5460ca9f/20150810-CRISPteamresponsetocombinedproposalQ5andQ6_io-0001.docx>