[CRISP-TEAM] Discussions in names: possible relavence to numbers Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.
nurani at netnod.se
Mon Feb 23 15:40:10 CET 2015
Thank you for forwarding this on.
I am trying to follow the CWG discussions a little bit through the archives.
(I tried to subscribe, just to follow the discussions as an observer, but that is apparently not possible. I was asked to fill out a form about who I am, who I represent etc. It doesn't seem to be possible to simply "listen in" to the discussions.)
This is indeed very interesting. And I think we may need to discuss this within CRISP and the RIR communities.
My very early thoughts from having just read this proposal quickly (so apologies if I misinterpreted anything):
While I can certainly understand the motivation from the names community and the problems they are trying to solve, I am not convinced that this is inline with the needs and wishes of the Numbers community.
Without having followed the background discussions completely, I interpret this "IANA board" as a move towards mixing policy and operations, in a way that we in the Numbers community have been very careful to separate.
I also think that the chart on page 4 "ICANN without NTIA" misrepresents the CRISP proposal. We propose establishing an SLA with the IANA operator and that is not to be confused with, or mixed in together with the RIR-ICANN MoU.
I also think it talks about IANA accountability in a way that is somewhat misguided and certainly not applicable to the Numbers community. In my view, the IANA operator needs to carry out an operational task according to the SLA established. There is no need to talk about IANA accountability as all they do is to provide a service.
(In our discussions in the CRISP group, we agreed that ICANN Accountability is something that is outside the scope of the CRISP process, as that it handled in the MoU between the RIRs and ICANN, which defines the gPDP. This can certainly be discussed, but CRISP is not the venue for it. And if you want to talk about RIR accountability, you can certainly do so, but not in this proposal. Those matters are handled in the RIR structures, processes and PDPs.)
This proposal seems to also make it impossible to potentially separate the three IANA functions at a future date. This is contrary to the CRISP proposal.
From first readings, I feel that this proposal does not meet the needs and wishes of the Numbers community and it does not improve anything in relation to the submitted CRISP proposal.
I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on this.
On 23 feb 2015, at 08:15, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> CRISP Team,
> Is anyone following this closely on CWG for names?
> While I have not had time to fully review this in details, this proposal
> seems to propose a more coordinated approach, to have New IANA Board,
> composed of representatives from names, numbers, protocol communities.
> I see Andrew Sullivan from IAB, expressing concerns about this suggested
> approach, in his personal capacity.
> See "Update on the Integrated model" thread for details.
> The latest post from Andew Sullivan is:
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.
> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:09:28 -0500
> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
> As mentioned in an earlier email, Matthew Shears, Brenden Kuerbis and I
> have been working on a model that attempts to integrate solutions to
> some of the various sets of concerns by those favoring internal models
> and those preferring external models while trying to make the model
> simpler and more accountable to the IANA ecosystem and the wider
> community. During Singapore week we spoke to as many as we could about
> this model and have received, and worked through, a number of comments
> on the open drive draft document, which we announced on the list.
> The working draft, which is still a work in progress and remains open
> for comment can be found at:
> I have attached a pdf version of a snapshot draft of the doc as of today.
> We would like to be able to present this at the next RFP3 meeting. Or
> anywhere else that is appropriate.
> We are also working on drafts to document the means by which this model
> responds to NTIA requirements, but we will able to speak those on list
> and during the meeting.
> In the draft we present three possible configurations for the model.
> The authors believe that Shared Service Arrangement (page 6) is the
> preferred configuration, as it offers the most accountability for the
> least amount of change or complexity. We would also be interested to
> see how these models fare under the stress testing - we have not done
> that in any focused way yet, though we have kept those tests in mind.
> It should be noted that this model would require a minimal amount of
> accommodation by the Protocols and Number communities, but believe that
> this accommodation while not disturbing their current model in any
> significant way would make IANA more accountable to them as well.
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP