[CRISP-TEAM] Additional questions from the ICG on the numbers proposal

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Tue Feb 24 11:10:11 CET 2015

Dear Colleagues,

The additional three questions below are asked from the ICG to the CRISP 
Team on the numbers proposal.

The CRISP Team will be working on our responses and share it with you 
once we have the draft.

In the meantime, if you have any questions or feedback at this stage, 
please feel free to share them on the list.

II.B.2. If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, 
identify which ones are affected and explain in what way.

Response in the numbers proposal:
> A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA Numbering Services, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA Functions Operator, would have no significant impact on the continuity of IANA Numbering Services currently provided by ICANN. However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from the current system
> ICANN has historically provided IANA Numbering Services via the IANA Number Registries under the terms of the NTIA IANA Functions contract, and therefore IANA Numbering Services for the RIRs are currently subject to change in accordance with that agreement.

  What specifically is the “element of oversight” which is referred to
  in this section, and how is it to be replaced under this proposal?

III.A. The elements of this proposal
Response in the numbers proposal:
> 1. ICANN to continue as the IANA Functions Operator for the IANA Numbering Services, hereinafter referred to as the IANA Numbering Services Operator, via a contract with the RIRs;
> 2. IPR related to the provision of the IANA services remains with the community;
> 3. Service Level Agreement with the IANA Numbering Services Operator; and
> 4. Establishment of a Review Committee, with representatives from each RIR, to advise the NRO EC on the review of the IANA functions operator’s performance and meeting of identified service levels.
> This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e., the number community, the protocol parameter community, and the name community) will have independent arrangements with the IANA Functions Operator related to maintenance of the specific registries for which they are responsible. At the same time, the Internet Number Community wishes to emphasize the importance of communication and coordination between these communities to ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such communication and coordination would be especially vital should the three communities reach different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA Functions Operator after the transition. Efforts to facilitate this communication and coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities via processes distinct from this stewardship transition process.

  How will the Review Committee be established, how will it
  operate, and how is it related to any other ICANN-related review

  Given the stated need for “communication and coordination” between
  the communities, how is this to be achieved under this proposal?

Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani

More information about the CRISP mailing list