[CRISP-TEAM] To Michael: Suggested changes to be reflected

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Wed Jan 14 17:44:45 CET 2015


This is the update on suggested texts to the draft you sent after the
12th meeting.

I reflected the point raised by Nurani's reverte back on PW's edits.
I also added just to mention I forwarded the suggested changes from Alan
which also needs to be incorporated (tabling, etc).

In addition to this, you need to incorporate :

 - "Compilation of Sugested texts - issues discussed at the 11th"
 - Move description of RIRs, NRO, NRO EC (suggested by Alan: different
   from the one I forwarded : the idea is to move description to
   Section I)

I.B. "A description of the customer"
not-for-profit membership-based organizations
(as description of RIRs)

II. B.1. would not have significant  impact --> no impact

II.B.3.i. NTIA (suggested by Andrei)
While the IANA functions operator escalation and reporting mechanisms
are public in nature, the NTIA has an oversight role in the provision of
the services through the contract with ICANN. The ultimate consequence
of failing to meet the performance standards or reporting requirements
is understood to be a decision by the contracting party (the NTIA) to
terminate or not renew the IANA functions agreement with the current
contractor (ICANN).

III.A (suggested by Andrei)
       (1) ICANN to continue as the IANA functions operator for the
       IANA Numbering Services, further referred to as the “IANA
       Numbering Services Operator”;
      (Andrei's suggetion and reflects Alan's feeedback)

III. A.2. (Paul's sugestion reflecting Alan's edit)
 "It is the preference of the RIR communities that all relevant
   parties agrees to these expectations as part of the transition."
   make this the last sentence from the paragraph above.

III.A.3. Service Level Agreement with the IANA Numbering Services
Operator (suggested by Andrei)

(First paragraph to move from III.A.1)
A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA
functions, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA
functions operator, would not have any significant impact on the
continuity of IANA Numbering Services currently provided by ICANN.
However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from the
current system.

The Internet numbering community proposes that a new contract be
established between the IANA Numbering Services Operator and the five
RIRs. The following is a proposal to replace the current NTIA IANA
agreement with a new contract that more directly reflects and enforces
the IANA functions operator's accountability to the open, bottom-up
numbers community. [...]

no change --> no significant change (for the second part which describes
service level and its review)
(suggested by Alan: SLA and review have changes from NTIA to RIRs)
VI. description of APNIC region processchange "acknowledge these
facts"to "agrees to these expectations".
[...is managed by the IANA operator and will
   be transferred to its successor(s) along with relevant

   It is the preference of the RIR community that all
   relevant parties acknowledge these facts as part of the
   transition. ]
remove the word "identical" from PW's text about gPDP

consistency :
 - Internet number community
 - IANA functions operator" as a general term, and "IANA Numbering
   Services Operator" as more specific term
 - date: --> leave it to pen as long as consistent
 - singular/plural -->singular
   (RIR community/RIR communities,
   Internet number community/ Internet numbers community)

What to revert back:
 - III.A.2.- RIR communities --> Internet community
 - the IANA --> the IANA operator (and substitute with agreed common phrase)
- In I.D restore the statement that the IANA Number Registries are
generally accessed via references based on the IANA.ORG domain name.
- In I.D reinstated that the administration of the special-purpose
IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA DNS zones may also require interaction
with the .ARPA zone registry. This was deleted from the I.C
- association -->organization (describing RIRs)
- Nurani's point: II.B.2. no impact --> not have any significant impact

+ suggestion from Alan (fowarded to Michael from Izumi)

More information about the CRISP mailing list