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

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Hi Izumi,

This version looks good to me.

Izumi Okutani wrote on 26/08/15 11:59:
[...]

> There are two points where I didn't make changes and would like to see for your comments:
> 
>  1. Q2. 

I suggest a slight modification to the text "each of the three IANA
function is basically independent with minimum overlap. In areas where
potential overlaps were anticipated, such as on Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR)  and establishment of the Post Transition IANA(PTI),'

specifically to use "potential incompatibility" instead of "potential
overlap" since we used the term overlap in a different context (i.e.
overlapping registries).


>     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 “.?
>

IMO, as long as the service levels are met, the IANA resources are
outside our concern. If we still  want to stress this point, I'd suggest
"The Number Community proposal for the RIRs to sign an SLA with ICANN is
still possible to implement, and therefore still workable, provided that
ICANN ensures that conditions in the SLA are met by the 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?

I have a bit of a problem with the answer to Q6 as it is written. I
think we should limit the scope of the review to "as pertained to the
administration of the special-purpose “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” DNS
zones".

I am not sure we need to include the second paragraph of the answer to Q6.

Thanks,

Andrei