[CRISP-TEAM] Comment from Jim Reid Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] support for final draft
apb at cequrux.com
Mon Jan 12 10:27:57 CET 2015
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> These are the points raised from Jim Reid.
>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.
I think he means "maybe there will be multiple contracts, such
as one with each RIR, not just one contract with multiple
> 2) The composition of the review committee
> - Probably needs to be wider than just those drawn from the RIR
> - 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 ?
The Review Committee will reviewing the IANA contractor's
performance of the numbers-related functions. Having
representation from the IANA contractor on such a committee
doesn't seem wise. (Asking the IANA contractor to provide
information, on the other hand, would be essential.)
I would not be opposed to some sort of liason from other
communities, such as the IETF, and I think that the document
should leave this possibility open. However, if there is to be
voting, then only the RIR communities should have a vote.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the CRISP