[CRISP-TEAM] [Feeback & Volunteer requested] Re: Details of the Review Process Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: First Draft

Mon Jan 5 18:11:16 CET 2015

CRISP Team,

To follow up from the 8th call, below are the principles I had suggested
to incorporate in the 2nd draft.

>> - 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.
>

In addition, in regards to the interval of the review, Alan has made a
suggestion to define the maximum interval but allow to shorten the
inverval of the review as needed.

Please express on the mailing list before UTC13:00 6th Jan, if you have
concerns to have these points reflected in the 2nd draft.

I'd also like to call for volunteer(s) to draft suggested text.

Anyone able to help in drafting the text?

Regards,
Izumi

On 2015/01/05 5:09, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> 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
> 