Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Wed Aug 12 13:47:52 CEST 2015


My draft response to ICG Q.10-12.
Apologies I was not able to send it earlier than intended.

I have put in [] the part which talks abou the other two communities.
For Q.10, I have broken down the analysis per NTIA criteria but it is also possible to make this a more broad general analysis.

# Q10. The implementation of the proposal will continue to uphold the NTIA criteria in the future

On the IANA Numbering Services, the implementation of the proposal will continue to uphold the NTIA criteria through RIRs, as representatives of their respective regional communities in bottom up, open, and inclusive community mechanim in place. We make our observations below, mainly on the IANA Numbering Serivces are the area we have the expertise with some additional observations on the other two functions.

* Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
Since core decisions making process of the RIRs is based on its commnunity/mebers, any change to this model will exposed to their feedback, which acts as a checks and balance in maintaining this criteria.
RIRs will face challenges from its communities if it abandons support for this model.

[We observe the IETF and the ICANN also have open and inclusive participation model of their equivalent with some variations on the mechaism but the fact that community based check and balance works is the same.]

* Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
There is no direct relevance the the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS on the proposal from the number community.  
Security, stability, and resiliency of the IANA Numbering Services will be maintained through the RIRs exchaning SLA and advice on the service level by the Review Committee.

As the direct customers of the IANA, it would be in the interest of RIRs to maintain security, stability, and resiliency of the IANA Numbering Services now in the future, compared to the NTIA, which will not be directly affected by failures of its service. Therefore, by putting RIRs to have the oversight on the IANA Numbering Services, the number community proposal upholds this criteria in the future.

[The proposal from the IETF maintains to status quo and have proven that this has worked for over a decade. Since the IANA functions on names propose new components, we defer to observations from those who are directly affected whether the CWG-Stewarship proposal continues to uphold to aintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS in the future. We do no observe concerns from the numbers community perspective.]

* Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and,
The number community proposal ensures the IANA Numbersing Services meets the expectation of the RIRs as its direct customers, by RIRs exchanging the SLA with ICANN. Through the contents of the SLA, RIRs can ensure that the IANA Funtions Operator (IFO) meet their expectations. RIRs will also conduct reviews of its the service level.

[We defer to the comments from the other two community members for protocol parameters and names related functions.]

* Maintain the openness of the Internet
This is again maintained in the future through the implementation of policies developed via open, transparent, and bottom-up processes, ensuring the transparent and coordinated distribution and registration of Internet Number Resources facilidated by RIRs. The same check and balance from the RIR community would work for this element, as for "Support and enhance the multistakeholder model".

Q11. ICG report and executive summary accurately reflect all necessary aspects of the overall proposal
All necesary aspects of the number community proposal is covered in the ICG report including ICANN continue to serve as the IANA Functions Operator, SLA with the five RIRs, setting up of the Review Committee and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

[It also covers post transition oversight and accountability mechanims for the other two IANA functions]

Q12. Any general comments for the ICG about the proposal
We observe this proposal refects what has reached consensus of the number resources commnity.
We support the elements described in the current combine proposal. On the other hand, if there are any substantial changes made in the next version of the ICG proposal, it would once again require review on changed parts, whether the numbers community support those changes.


More information about the CRISP mailing list