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

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Hi,

Some initial thoughts, I am interested to hear others opinion,
especially on the last question.

Izumi Okutani wrote on 24/02/15 11:10:
[...]

> ----
> 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.
> 
>  Question1:
>  What specifically is the “element of oversight” which is referred to
>  in this section, and how is it to be replaced under this proposal?
>

Looking through the SoW, the element is oversight of performance
standards (see sections C.2.8, C.4.2., C.4.4.) and inspection and
acceptance (C4.7. and Section E). I think in our proposal oversight is
rested with the RIRs, facilitated by the SLA and the Review Committee.
Failure to meet these requirements may result in termination of the
agreement.


> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>  III.A.
>  Question2:
>  How will the Review Committee be established, how will it
>  operate, and how is it related to any other ICANN-related review
>  committees?

Consistent with our overall approach we only provided essential
requirements, like the objective of the committee, equal representation
from each RIR region, and open, transparent, and bottom-up process of
the selection of its representatives. Since the Review Committee only
facilitates the oversight function, performed by the RIRs, we left the
details of it to the RIRs and their respective communities.

The Review Committee does not relate to any of the ICANN-related review
committees.



> 
>  Question3:
>  Given the stated need for “communication and coordination” between
>  the communities, how is this to be achieved under this proposal?
> ----
> 

This is a very good question. As I mentioned in my previous e-mail there
might be a need for a more formal documentation of such coordination.
For instance, early in the process of the development of the CRISP
proposal there was an idea of affirmation of commitment between the RIRs
and the IETF.

Andrei