[CRISP-TEAM] Suggestion about change in global PDP
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Sun Jan 4 17:57:21 CET 2015
As you know there has been some discussions IANAXFER list on gPDP.
I'd like to elaborate my suggestion as below.
1. CRISP Team focuses on what would be affected by NTIA's stewardship
- NTIA currently plays no role in gPDP for the number resources
We believe what would be affected by NTIA's stewardship transition
in the number resources is the accountability of IANA operation.
Hence gPDP is out of focus of our proposal.
- There has been a mention on the IANAXFER list about ICANN
Accountability and NTIA playing a symbolic role. There is another WG
estabilished in ICANN about this issue and it could be addressed as
a part of the discussions in such WG, if there are any issues on
ICANN Accountability, not as a part of CRISP Team proposal.
2. Importantly, any changes in gPDP should go through the regular
exisitng process which is bottom up, open and consensus based.
It is against the spirit of our community and the process, for CRISP
Team to develop a proposal to NTIA without going through this
regular community based process from all RIR regions.
I'd like to discuss it at the coming 8th call and welcome your feedback,
especially if you have other opinions.
On 2014/12/26 0:54, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> CRISP Team,
> i suggest a minor update of section 10 of the gPDP as follow: In case
> Step 9 (c), should at least *two* of the RIRs agree that changes need to
> be made
> My suggested response:
> Changes in global PDP is out of the scope of ICG's RFP, hense CRISP
> Team's work.
> Suggest Seun to go through the standard process(i.e.,go through gPDP
> process to propose the change in gPDP), if he would like to change this
> part of global PDP.
> Any other thoughts or approach?
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship
> Proposal: First Draft
> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:20:34 +0100
> From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
> CC: ianaxfer at nro.net <ianaxfer at nro.net>
> Hello Izumi,
> Thanks for the share, kindly find below a few comments/suggestions (first
> - The entire first paragraph of section III should be deleted as it does
> not add any more value to the response for that section
> - I suggest replacing the word contract in section III with agreement and
> this will also largely require re-wording of 3rd paragraph of section IV
> - The agreement (currently referred to as contract) should not be termed
> based as presumed to be indicated in section III but should have
> termination conditions
> - The Review committee may not necessarily be required as i believe the
> role of ICANN is clear and the termination conditions will be largely tied
> to the gPDP plus other technical operations efficiencies. In view of this,
> i propose that the review of compliance to agreement terms be handled
> mainly by the NRO-NC but in conjunction with NRO-EC.
> However if there is more consensus towards establishing a review team i
> will still be okay with it (although its extra cost) but will then strongly
> suggest that the selection of the committee be done by the COMMUNITY. I
> propose that the community of each RIR should elect a member while the
> chair of the NRO-EC at any point in time will be co-opted to serve as the
> review team (6 in total)
> Finally on a related note, i suggest a minor update of section 10 of the
> gPDP as follow:
> In case Step 9 (c), should at least *two* of the RIRs agree that changes
> need to be made
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>> Please find the first draft of the Internet numbers community's response
>> to the Request For Proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination
>> Group (ICG). This draft has been prepared by the Consolidated RIR IANA
>> Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team, and we are now seeking feedback on
>> this draft from the global community.
>> The next CRISP team teleconference will be held on Monday 22 December at
>> 13:00 UTC. Details on how to join as an observer will be posted to this
>> 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
>> Key points:
>> - ICANN to continue as an operator of the IANA function:
>> - Agreement: Exchange SLA with ICANN as the IANA function
>> operator on number resources
>> - Review Committee with representatives from each RIR region
>> Other notes about the draft:
>> The following will be reflected in the second draft.
>> - The first two sentences of the last paragraph in Section III
>> "Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements"
>> is under consideration by CRISP Team to be deleted.
>> - In addition, CRISP Team continues work on editing, to have our
>> answers in the same order as questions listed in each section.
>> Key dates:
>> First draft published : 19 Dec 2014
>> First draft comments close : 5 Jan 2015
>> Second draft to be published : 8 Jan 2015
>> Second draft comments close : 12 Jan 2015
>> Final proposal to be sent to ICG : 15 Jan 2015
>> How to engage in discussions:
>> All global discussions, for CRISP team to consider as community
>> feedback, will be conducted at <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list.
>> All CRISP team discussions are open to observers.
>> * Discussions by CRISP Team
>> Details of all the CRISP team's work to date, including recordings,
>> minutes and agendas of all CRISP teleconferences and a public
>> archive of the internal CRISP team mailing list, are available at:
>> * Other links:
>> - ICG request for proposals:
>> - The IANA Stewardship Transition Discussion in each RIR region:
>> ianaxfer mailing list
>> ianaxfer at nro.net
More information about the CRISP