[CRISP-TEAM] [NRO-IANAXFER] Call for submission of comment to the combined ICG proposal and the CRISP Team draft response
rendek at ripe.net
Fri Aug 28 14:30:36 CEST 2015
I support this approach.
On 8/28/15 10:27 AM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> CRISP Team,
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>>> 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:
>>> 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
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP