[CRISP-TEAM] Additional questions from the ICG on the numbers proposal
robachevsky at isoc.org
Thu Feb 26 09:19:52 CET 2015
Izumi, is there a deadline for our response to these questions?
Some additional thoughts inline.
Izumi Okutani wrote on 24/02/15 15:01:
> Draft response:
> The IANA stewardship transition by the NTIA would remove a significant
> element of oversight role NTIA plays, as decribed in Section II.B.3.i.
I agree with Richard Hill's suggestion and would add (as per II.B.3.i.
- The contract under which ICANN carries out operation of the IANA
functions. The NTIA has the ability to terminate the contract and award
it to an entity other than ICANN.
> - The role that NTIA is playing in obliging ICANN as the IANA function
> operator, to to manage the IANA Number Registries according to
> policies developed by the Internet Number Community.
> - NTIA reviews service level o the IANA function operator, including
> that of the IANA Numbering Services, based on what is defined in the
> IANA contract between ICANN and NTIA
> (sections C.2.8, C.4.2., C.4.4.,C4.7. and Section E)
> This will be replace wiht the contract between ICANN and RIRs, and RIRs
> will conduct review of the Service Level, with advice from the Review
> II.B.3.i. NTIA
> ICANN, as the current IANA Numbering Services Operator, is obligated by
> the NTIA agreement to manage the IANA Number Registries according to
> policies de veloped by the Internet Number Community.
> Although the IANA operator escalation and reporting mechanisms are
> public in nature, the NTIA has an oversight role in the provision of the
> services through its contract with ICANN. The ultimate consequence
> of failing to meet the performance standards or reporting requirements
> is understood to be a decision by the contracting party (the NTIA) to
> terminate or not renew the IANA Functions Agreement with the current
> contractor (ICANN).
>>> 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.
> Yes indeed. I think this was the part we intentionally left it withouth
> defining too much as it requires coordination with other operational
>> 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.
> Would the AoC between RIRs and IETF is to cover the overlaps in number
> resources to distinct about specfication(IETF) and management and
> distribution (RIRs)?
> I personally think it may be useful to have such AoC regardless, but for
> this question, it seems to me that we still need to cover a mechanism on
> how we coordinate including the names.
> In my opinions, it would be preferable to make use of existing channels
> for coordination, rather than creating new ones, one for the prove that
> it works and second for miminizing the work required.
> Based on this thinking, one idea which comes to my mind is to make use
> of existing ICANN stakeholder groups as a POC for coordination.
> i.e. Number - ASO, Names - GNSO, ccNSO, Protocols - IETF
> They will each select representatives of their group for coordination,
> like they would for any Cross Community Working Group within ICANN.
> What are people's thoughts on this?
> I'm just putting an idea of on the table and interested to hear other
> ideas as well.
I agree, Izumi, that such coordination should include the names
communities. I think your propopsal makes a lot of sense, but I'd be
reluctant to suggest something concrete in our response to the ICG. I
think we should closely follow the development of the names proposal and
see if some of the coordination approaches discussed there can work for
As for our response I agree with Seun Ojedeji's suggestion that it
"should be looked at beyond the transition so that should not necessary
make the proposal seem incomplete". We may also note that there have
been many examples when such cooperation between the communities worked
whenever the need arose. FWIW, the IETF's response provides one of such
> Changes to IETF standards may have impact on operations of RIRs
> and service providers. A recent example is the extensions to BGP
> to carry the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities
> [RFC6793]. It is important to note that this change occurred out
> of operational necessity, and it demonstrated strong alignment
> between the RIRs and the IETF.
More information about the CRISP