[CRISP-TEAM] draft response to the combined proposal

Mon Aug 10 17:57:31 CEST 2015

Hi everyone,

I am happy to volunteer for the final edit, so please let me know how I
can help and I¹m happy to coordinate with everyone.

Thanks,
-Michael

-- 
Michael R. Abejuela

Associate General Counsel

ARIN

3635 Concorde Parkway

Suite 200

Chantilly, VA 20151

(703) 227-9875 (p)

(703) 263-0111 (f)

mabejuela at arin.net

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, copy, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited.   If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.

On 8/10/15, 10:24 AM, "Sweeting, John" <john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:

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