[CRISP-TEAM] Discussions in names: possible relavence to numbers Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Nurani Nimpuno wrote on 23/02/15 15:40:
> 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.

The charter of the community board isn't clear to me either. In the
Andrew Sullivan's reply, Izumi referred to, he suggested that a slight
modification of the first variant could be acceptable. I.e. ICANN
subcontracts to the PTI, while the IETF (and the RIRs supposedly) have
SLAs/MOU with ICANN as per our proposals.

I also think this can work, but IMO will depend on what is and is not
within the scope of the PTI board. For instance, if the board can make
decisions regarding the SLA, that would certainly create tensions if not
conflicts in the arrangement.

But I only read the Google doc, which is quite dense, so might have
missed some important points.

[...]

> 
> (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.)
>

Yes, our solution for ICANN's accountability as the IANA operator is the
ability to walk away if it stops meeting community requirements and
expectations (after serious consideration, of course). But, see below...

> 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.

Very good point. Although I'd like to note that while our proposal makes
it clean and easy, in reality the separation of the numbers function
will require coordination, if not consent of the IETF, since it has the
authority over the top-level IP and ASN registries. We probably need to
discuss if we want to formalize or strengthen otherwise such coordination.

Andrei