[CRISP-TEAM] Comment from Jim Reid Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] support for final draft

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,


These are the points raised from Jim Reid.
He clearly states he still support the second proposal but would like to
clarify how we address it.

It seems there are some community members who actually have comments
about the agreement in addition to Richard Hill, and let's take this
situation into consideration, when discussing, whether or not we have
open consultation process, when developing SLA.



1) Form of the contract
 - He is sceptical about the practicality of a single contract between
   the IANA operator and 5 RIRs in a post NTIA world.

I don't follow the context of where this is coming from.

Does any CRISP member from the RIPE region understands?

Currently, my observation is that if there is any principle which is the
background of this suggestion, we can consider incorporating it.
However, a single/five seperate contract is details for RIR to consider
at the time of implementation.


2) The composition of the review committee
- Probably needs to be wider than just those drawn from the RIR
  communities.
- IANA and possibly the IETF's interests should be represented in this
  committee too.

He states this is implementation detail that is not needed at this
stage. Do we want to consider a position to this, or simply acknowledge
this is not a must ?

This looks like an area outside our scope to define. Perhaps, we we
describe in our proposal that open bottom up and transparent process
should be taking,  when defining the scope, composition and nomination
process  the Review Team selection, this would allow Jim to raise this
point during that process.

What are your thoughts?


Izumi

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] support for final draft
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 00:29:42 +0000
From: Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>
To: ianaxfer list <ianaxfer at nro.net>

I am sceptical about the practicality of a single contract between the
IANA operator and 5 RIRs in a post NTIA world. Though I suppose any
documented agreement for this new arrangement would effectively be a
contract in one form or another. The composition of proposed review
committee probably needs to be wider than just those drawn from the RIR
communities. IANA and possibly the IETF's interests should be
represented in this committee too. However this is implementation detail
that is not needed at this stage.

Despite these reservations, I support the draft proposal.


_______________________________________________
ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer at nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer