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

Tue Jan 6 03:07:24 CET 2015

Thank you John for the feedback and confirming no concern.

I realised Alan did volunteer to work on this part. Thank you Alan for
volunteering, in addition to other sections you have volunteered to work
on text. I really appreciate it.

Regard,
Izumi

On 2015/01/06 9:07, Sweeting, John wrote:
> 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.
> 