[CRISP-TEAM] Feedback requested before th next CRISP call (UTC13:00 5th Dec) Re: Details of the Review Process Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: First Draft

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,


As follow up from the last call (7th call)-

Please give your feedback before the next call(at UTC 13:00 5th Jan),
whether you agree to include the points suggested by Anrew Dul below:


- The review report will be publicly disclosed
- 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.


I welcome feedback as well on :

 - Whether we should define the interval of the reviews
   e.g., the same interval as the existing review conducted by NTIA
 - Any other points to describe on Review Process in our proposal to ICG


Regards,
Izumi

On 2014/12/31 23:55, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> CRISP Team,
> 
> 
> These are some possible points of considerations raised about the review
> process.
> 
> (snip)
> 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.  (snip)
> 
> 
> 
> Questions to CRISP Team:
> 
> - Do you think we should cover all or any of the details listed in the
>    proposal to be submitted to ICG?
> - If we make the decision not to include any of the details listed as a
>    part of the concrete proposal, would you think it's fair to list them
>    as possible points of considerations? Or should we not mention at all?
> 
> My current preference is:
> 
>   - Include details where we can reach consensus as CRISP Team and agree
>     to include in the proposal to ICG
>   - Mention as a possible points of considerations for details we didn't
>     reach an agreement/too detailed to mention as proposal to ICG.
> 
> I welcome to hear any other thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>