[CRISP-TEAM] [NRO-IANAXFER] JPNIC's comment for CRISP's initial draft
nurani at netnod.se
Thu Jan 1 23:12:40 CET 2015
I agree that JPNIC's comments are good.
As the suggestion of putting in place requirements for the review committee, I personally feel that we should refrain from defining too many requirements in this document. I am leaning more towards Hans Petter's suggestion to leave the selection of the members to each RIR community. As he notes, the review committee is merely providing advice and is not a decision making body.
One alternative could be to simply state something general about how members will be selected based on their competence and knowledge of the IANA function (or something to that effect), and that each RIR community should do so in a bottom-up, transparent manner.
On 29 dec 2014, at 16:32, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:
> FWIW, I think we should definitely take the JPNIC points on board. It
> seems to me that many of them we have already considered, but we may
> want to articulate them more clearly.
> Izumi Okutani wrote on 29/12/14 13:33:
>> This comment from JPNIC is seperate from my personal view/involvement in
>> CRISP Team.
>> However, since JPNIC is an organization I work for, if Alan is willing
>> to accept and agreed by other members of CRISP Team, I would like to
>> hand over chairing related to the comment from JPNIC to Alan.
>> I'll refrain from making comments/be involved in decisions related to this.
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] JPNIC's comment for CRISP's initial draft
>> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:07:58 +0900
>> From: MAEMURA Akinori <maem at nic.ad.jp>
>> To: ianaxfer at nro.net
>> Dear CRISP Team,
>> Thank you for developing the response to be submitted to ICG on the IANA
>> stewardship transition for the number resources function.
>> JPNIC supports all three key elements of the proposal; They are
>> consistent with what JPNIC considers as important principles, which are
>> a) maintaining the continued stability of the IANA function b) ensuring
>> a scheme of accountability for the operation of the IANA function on the
>> number resources in meeting the needs of its stakeholders and c) have
>> pragmatic approach to meet the targeted deadline set by ICG.
>> With these as the basis, there are two aspects we would like to make
>> 1. Description of existing scheme and proposed transition plan
>> When integrating with proposals from other IANA functions, this
>> proposal may appear minimal compared to names, while it is proposed
>> based upon valid reasons. It is important that communities outside
>> the number resources understand this very clearly.
>> We would like to request CRISP Team to double check, before
>> submitting the proposal, that the following points are explicitly
>> explained so that it can be clearly understood, especially by ICG
>> members from the other communities as well as by NTIA.
>> a. Unlike the IANA names function where NTIA approves changes in
>> root zone file, there is no direct involvement by NTIA in
>> operation of the IANA function on the number resources.
>> Therefore, the transition of NTIA's stewardship has no direct
>> effect on the operation of the IANA function on number resources.
>> b. The only part NTIA is involved for the part of number resource,
>> is conducting reviews on the service level of the delegated IANA
>> function based on the IANA contract between NTIA and ICANN. This
>> is the part which is addressed and proposed by CRISP Team by the
>> agreement to focus on service level IANA's number resources
>> function, and Review Committee.
>> 2. Comments related to proposed elements
>> While we agree with the framework and the concept of each proposed
>> elements, we believe the following points are important for
>> respective proposed elements.
>> a. Agreement with IANA function operator on the number resources
>> In addition to maintaining the service level, we believe a scheme
>> which ensures accountability on the service provision by IANA
>> function operator for the number resources is important. This
>> includes transparency of criteria and procedures, as well as a
>> scheme which adequately addresses concerns/complaints raised about
>> the service with clearly defined processes for remedies.
>> b. Review Committee
>> We believe it is important to ensure Review Committee provides
>> adequate advice with a certain level of understanding on the IANA
>> function on number resources. Receiving advice on the service
>> level with inadequate knowledge could even risk its service level
>> to deteriorate.
>> We therefore propose to have requirements for representatives to
>> Review Committee to have sufficient knowledge in reviewing the
>> IANA function on number resources. In addition, it may be useful
>> to have rough guidelines on the role and key points of review, to
>> share a common understanding and secure quality of the advice above
>> a certain level.
>> Lastly, we believe members of Review Committee must be selected by
>> the community of each RIR region, such as in the form of elections
>> conducted for NRO NC(ASO AC). NRO EC should not be involved in
>> its selection to allow Review Committee to provide impartial
>> advice to NRO EC, representing the RIR communities.
>> Best Regards,
>> MAEMURA Akinori,
>> on behalf of JPNIC - Japan Network Information Center
>> MAEMURA Akinori General Manager, Internet Development Dept.
>> maem at nic.ad.jp JPNIC - Japan Network Information Center
>> ianaxfer mailing list
>> ianaxfer at nro.net
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP