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

Alan Barrett 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 
> 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 ?

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 mailing list