[CRISP-TEAM] [NRO-IANAXFER] Call for submission of comment to the combined ICG proposal and the CRISP Team draft response

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Aug 28 11:27:00 CEST 2015


We have received a question and clarification.

While we encourage anyone in the community with a different view from 
the CRISP Team to submit their own comment to the ICG, I think we need 
to respond to the question about our response.

If no objection to this approach, I will draft a response which I hope 
to share on the global list on Monday.


On 2015/08/28 16:15, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
> Dear Izumi and all,
> Thank you for this.
> I must admit I am a bit surprised by this part of the response:
>> The names community proposes the creation of a new organization to
>> manage all IANA functions, namely the PTI. Such a structure was not
>> proposed by the other communities. However, we do not believe this
>> creates an incompatibility for the other communities. The Number
>> Community proposal for the RIRs to sign an SLA with ICANN is still
>> possible to implement, and therefore still workable.
>> Further, as a part of the composition of the PTI, the names community
>> proposes creation of additional committees aimed at reviewing service
>> levels and providing operational oversight (namely, the IFRT, special
>> IFRT and the CSC).
>> The Number Community requires no additional reviews or organizational
>> structures beyond the Review Committee that is specified in the Number
>> Community proposal. However, because the scope of the activity of
>> these new structures is limited to the IANA naming function, we see no
>> overlap nor do we see any incompatibility.
> When there is no overlap between the PTI proposal of the names community
> (a single new organization for all functions) and that of the Number
> Community, I don't see why this is a suggestion that should be accepted.
>   I do in fact see it being a problem that the policy body for the names
> community (ICANN) will be the entity the Number Community would have to
> contract with, instead of the actual body which will be performing the
> IANA Numbering Services Operator (the "PTI" in the names community's
> lingo).
> Indeed, I see difficulty that arises from keeping the three operators
> together, since that limits severability of the contract.  It would
> limit the ability of the Number Community to choose a new Operator if,
> by design, all three functions have the same Operator.  It is far better
> for the operator of each of these functions being separate so that
> impediments don't exist between the ability of the Number Community to
> choose a different IANA Numbering Services Operator without affecting
> the operation of the IANA Names Services Operator or the IANA Protocol
> Services Operator.
> Could the CRISP Team please elaborate on its reasoning behind believing
> that a singular PTI for all three functions will not hamper its stated
> need to be able to sever the contract with the INSO and choose a new INSO?
> Regards,
> Pranesh
> Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> [2015-08-27 08:30:06 +0900]:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>> We would like to share the attached CRISP Team response to the draft
>> IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal for public comment.
>>   IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal: Call for Public Comment
>> https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/
>> As described in the call for Public Comment by the ICG:
>> "It is critical that the ICG build a public record that reflects broad
>> community support for the proposal and justifies the proposal’s
>> conformance with the NTIA criteria before the proposal can be
>> submitted to NTIA.
>> Thus, commenters are encouraged to file comments in support of the
>> proposal even if they have no concerns to express about the proposal."
>> You can contribute to the process in three ways as described below.
>> 1. Submit your own comment to the ICG
>>    We strongly encourage you to submit your comment to the ICG.
>>    This helps the ICG to build public record that the combined
>> proposal has support of the broad community.
>>    - It is not a requirement to respond to all questions from the ICG.
>>      Submission of comments expressing a general support for the
>> proposal itself would be helpful enough, without responding to
>> specific aspects of the proposal.
>>    - Please feel free to use the CRISP Team response as a reference,
>> in considering contents for your own submission.
>>      Words in bold letters cover a general observation which could be
>> applicable to anyone in the Number Community.
>>      Details specific to the CRISP Team are in italics.
>>      Deadline of the submission: 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC
>>       - You can submit your comment using the online form or by e-mail
>> to <public-comments at ianacg.org>.
>>         For details see:
>> https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/#instructionssubmitcomment
>> 2. Help spread the word
>>    Encourage others to submit comments to the ICG.
>> 3. Express support to the CRISP Team response to the ICG
>>    Support expressed by e-mail to <ianaxfer at nro.net> before 7
>> September 2015 23:59 UTC will be recorded as the level of support from
>> the Number Community to the CRISP Team response.
>>    We will share this in our response to the ICG, but will not share
>> the names of individuals who expressed support. We therefore encourage
>> you to submit your own comment to the ICG in addition, as described in 1.
>> We are looking forward to your contributions in this important phase
>> of the process, as an opportunity to express support towards the
>> transition which will be lead to bottom-up, community based oversight
>> mechanism for the IANA functions.
>> Best Regards,
>> Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno
>> on behalf of the CRISP Team
>> _______________________________________________
>> ianaxfer mailing list
>> ianaxfer at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

More information about the CRISP mailing list