[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

[Nurani Nimpuno]

Dear colleagues,


On 2 jan 2015, at 17:50, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

> 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.

All very good points. 
Fully agree with all three points.

> 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

Personally I am not sure if we should set the actual interval time here. But it needs to be clear that there will be reviews at a set interval. 

> - Any other points to describe on Review Process in our proposal to ICG

Not that I can think of at this point.

Kind regards,

Nurani

> 
> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp