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

[Sweeting, John]

+1

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 28, 2015, at 5:31 AM, Paul Rendek <rendek at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> Hello Izumi,
>
> I support this approach.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Izumi
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.