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

Sweeting, John john.sweeting at twcable.com
Tue Jan 6 01:07:58 CET 2015 

No concerns

On 1/5/15, 12:11 PM, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

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


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

More information about the CRISP mailing list