[CRISP-TEAM] draft response to the combined proposal

[Sweeting, John]

Yes, they make sense. Maybe Michael will volunteer for final edit, he did
a great job during the proposal period.

Michael??? ;-)

On 8/10/15, 10:02 AM, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

>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.
>>
>


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.