[CRISP-TEAM] Response to the ICG Re: Actions

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,


Please see the updated version of our response to the ICG.

 - Reflecting Andrei's comment
 - Address Nurani's comment on the doc
 - A few additional words/changed order of sentences for clarification purpose, better backing of our point.

There are two points where I didn't make changes and would like to see for your comments:

 1. Q2. 
    Observation about compability on PTI.
    We say we observe no compability with establishment of PTI, which is correct. 
    Do we want to give condition such as “given all existing resources to perform the IANA functions under ICANN will be made available to PTI “.?

 2. Q.6 
    We are describig the number community as the customer of the IANA Numbering Services.
    I can see this perspective in the wider sense, as the same time I assume RIRs would consider themselves as the direct customers of the IANA Numbering Services.
    Do we keep this description as it is, or mention anything about RIRs being the direct customers?

If you have further comments, please add edits to this version before UTC12:00 today, Wed 26th Aug.


Thanks,
Izumi


On 2015/08/26 0:16, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>> I am thinking that maybe we should follow the gist of the recently
>> published ISOC paper on the principles (a quote below) and more
>> extensively state that these are the operating principles of the
>> communities so far and not something new to be implemented and tested.
>> Time has proven them.
>>
>> We can provide concrete examples (e.g. policy development, self
>> regulation, etc.) taking text from the detailed responses, but not
>> comment on each principle on by one.
> 
> 
> Completely agree.
> In fact I sent this out before readin this comment and I had the same thinking - hence mentioned the ISOC paper.
> 
> I didn't refelct the quote, and extensively stating, not something new, tested, simply because I didn't see this but all good points.
> I'll be off-line shortly, so will work on it more tomorrow my time.
> 
> In the meantime, please feel free to make further edits if you have a chance.
> 
> 
> Izumi
> 
> On 2015/08/25 19:41, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>> This is a great collective effort, the response has shaped up very well,
>> in my opinion.
>>
>> Nurani Nimpuno wrote on 25/08/15 08:58:
>>> I think this is shaping up, but I still think we might need to review the last question again and make sure it says what we want it to say. I also agree with Izumi’s comment about the level of detail on question 10.
>>
>> I am thinking that maybe we should follow the gist of the recently
>> published ISOC paper on the principles (a quote below) and more
>> extensively state that these are the operating principles of the
>> communities so far and not something new to be implemented and tested.
>> Time has proven them.
>>
>> We can provide concrete examples (e.g. policy development, self
>> regulation, etc.) taking text from the detailed responses, but not
>> comment on each principle on by one.
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>> Andrei Robachevsky wrote on 30/07/15 09:08:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> You may find this paper, just released by ISOC, interesting
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/perspectives-iana-stewardship-transition-principles
>>>
>>> The main goal of the paper is to demonstrate that the principles
>>> outlined by the NTIA are not just the product of the United States
>>> government but rather are reflective of the fundamental characteristics
>>> that have enabled the Internet to grow and evolve, to show how they
>>> mirror the broader Internet principles which have been adopted and
>>> embedded through years of international consensus.
>>>
>>> Sally Wentworth also wrote a blogpost related to this:
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2015/07/perspectives-iana-stewardship-transition-principles
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CRISP team response to the call for public comment on the combined proposal-20150826_3.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 43736 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150826/ac213cdf/CRISPteamresponsetothecallforpubliccommentonthecombinedproposal-20150826_3-0001.docx>