[CRISP-TEAM] Need to change existing MoUs (NRO & ASO MoUs ) ? Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: First Draft

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,


If anyone feels we may need to change the existing MoUs (ASO and NRO),
please raise it so we can discuss it in the coming 8th call on 5th Jan.


To move forward on this, I have tentatively drafted my draft reply based
on the current assumption that modification is not necessary

 - but I do wish to confirm with the team whether we all think
modification is not necessary.

---
CRISP team doesn't believe modification of the existing NRO MoU nor ASO
MoU are needed as as result of NTIA's stewardship transition.

Neither of the MoUs are about IANA function on the number resources, and
NTIA is not involved in those areas covered in the two MoUs.

   NRO MoU: describes purpose and structure of NRO
   ASO MoU: describes necessary agreements about gPDP
            (processes, roles, relationships btwn NRO NC and ICANN
             Board)
---



Regards,
Izumi


On 2014/12/31 23:45, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> CRISP Team,
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts about this question, on the need to change the
> existing MoUs?
> 
> (snip)
> Sec 3, paragraph 4: Does the CRISP team believe that the existing
> agreements (NRO MOU & ASO MOU) between ICANN & the RIRs would be
> modified as a result of this transition or that the new IANA SLA would
> just be an additional new agreement?
> (snip)
> 
> 
> My understanding is neither MoUs (NRO nor ASO) will be affected as a
> result of NTIA's stewardship transition, because NTIA is not involved in
> those areas covered in the two MoUs.
> 
>   NRO MoU: describes purpose and structure of NRO
>   ASO MoU: describes necessary agreements about gPDP
>            (processes, roles, relationships btwn NRO NC and ICANN Board)
> 
> If this is correct (I'm happy to be corrected if this is wrong), would
> it  be fair to assume we will change *neither* of the MoUs, given this
> it not within the scope of NTIA's stewardship transition?
> 
> Or is there a possibility to make changes to the existing MoU?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Izumi
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship
> Proposal: First Draft
> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:30:53 -0800
> From: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
> Reply-To: andrew.dul at quark.net
> To: ianaxfer at nro.net
> 
> On 12/18/2014 8:01 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>>   Draft proposal: https://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-first-draft
>>
>>   The deadline for providing feedback: 5 January 2015
>>   Feedback should be sent to         : <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list
>>
> Hello CRISP team,
> 
> I first want to thank you for the well formed draft you have produced on
> a limited time frame.  Now for a few comments.
> 
> Regarding the draft:
> 
> Sec 3, paragraph 4: Does the CRISP team believe that the existing
> agreements (NRO MOU & ASO MOU) between ICANN & the RIRs would be
> modified as a result of this transition or that the new IANA SLA would
> just be an additional new agreement?
> 
> Sec 3, paragraph 5: Describes in general the periodic reviews of the new
> IANA numbers function contract between the NRO EC and the functions
> operator.  Has the CRISP team considered if the proposed review process
> should developed more than is currently drafted?  For example: Should
> there be some basic statements about the process details? Such as ...
> The review it will be conducted at minimum ever X years?  The review
> report will be publicly disclosed and the review committee selection and
> process conducted in an open and transparent manner.  If the NRO EC
> determines that a change is needed with the IANA numbers function
> contract; the RFP for a new contractor will be conducted in a fair, open
> and transparent process in line with applicable industry best practices
> and standards.
> 
> Sec 3, paragraph 6: RIR accountability & oversight within their own
> regions is an important consideration during this transition.  Every
> stakeholder should consider if the the RIRs themselves are appropriately
> accountable to their members and stakeholders.   Furthermore, one should
> consider if a periodic review of the RIR's accountability to their
> members should be reviewed on a periodic basic and what form that formal
> review should take.
> 
> Sec 6: While I believe the current draft reflects the discussion that
> took place within the RIR's regions (for those sections which have
> text), section 6 is missing details about the formation of the CRISP
> team, the team's processes and methods for developing, publishing,
> receiving feedback from stakeholders, and determining consensus on the
> final draft.  (See my comments below for my suggestions on process as
> you continue)
> 
> Regarding the CRISP process:
> 
> I'd like to suggest that the team post the 2nd draft to the mailing list
> within an email in text format to facilitate discussion of the draft on
> the mailing list.
> 
> I'd also like to suggest that the team consider a couple of real-time
> events to facilitate discussion.  An open global conference call and/or
> global txt chat in a couple of different time zones to accommodate all
> members of the Internet community might be helpful to spawning robust
> discussion.  Perhaps these could be arranged shortly after the release
> of the 2nd draft.
> 
> How will the CRISP team determine support for the final draft from the
> global number resource community?   Will there be a call for statements
> of support or some other mechanism for members of the community note
> their support or lack thereof for the final draft?  Or a mechanism for
> stakeholders to lodge specific comments on the final draft, which would
> be passed to the ICG team?  The mailing-list has been very quiet so far,
> and the discussion has mostly centered on the IPR issues and not the
> general content of the draft RFP.  (Which could mean that the team did a
> good job of capturing the needs of the community, but it would be good
> to get positive confirmation of this fact, if it is true.)  There are
> currently 120 people subscribed to this list, based upon the subscriber
> listing on the archives.
> 
> Again, thanks for the work so far and I look forward to continuing the
> discussion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> 
>