[CRISP-TEAM] Response to questions asked of CRISP Team

[Alan Barrett]

FYI, here's the message sent ot the ICG.  I also sent a copy to the
ianaxfer list.

----- Forwarded message from Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> -----

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:52:04 +0200
From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
To: internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: Response to questions asked of CRISP Team

Deear ICG members,

I refer to the questions that Paul Wilson forwarded from the ICG
to the CRISP Team on 24 Feb 2015.

The CRISP Team has the following response:

> II.B.2. If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, 
> identify which ones are affected and explain in what way.
> 
> Response in the numbers proposal:
>> A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA 
>> Numbering Services, and therefore its contractual relationship with 
>> the IANA Functions Operator, would have no 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
>> 
>> ICANN has historically provided IANA Numbering Services via the IANA 
>> Number Registries under the terms of the NTIA IANA Functions 
>> contract, and therefore IANA Numbering Services for the RIRs are 
>> currently subject to change in accordance with that agreement.
> 
> Question1:
> What specifically is the "element of oversight" which is referred to 
> in this section, and how is it to be replaced under this proposal?

The element of oversight that the NTIA provides for the IANA Numbering 
Services is the ability to change the contract with ICANN.

This is stated in the very next paragraph of the CRISP proposal (the last 
paragraph of section III.B.2), immediately after the sentence that says 
"it would remove a significant element of oversight":

  ICANN has historically provided IANA Numbering Services via
  the IANA Number Registries under the terms of the NTIA IANA
  Functions contract, and therefore IANA Numbering Services for
  the RIRs are currently subject to change in accordance with
  that agreement.

Section II.B.3.i expands on this:

  ICANN, as the current IANA Numbering Services Operator, is
  obligated by the NTIA agreement to manage the IANA Number
  Registries according to policies developed by the Internet
  Number Community.

  Although the IANA operator escalation and reporting mechanisms
  are public in nature, the NTIA has an oversight role in the
  provision of the services through its 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).

The proposed new contract between the NRO/RIRs and ICANN replaces the 
existing IANA Functions contract on the IANA Numbering Services. It 
provides the same type of oversight, that is, the possibility of 
delegating IANA Numbering Services to an entity other than ICANN and 
provisions on how the IANA function should be performed.


> III.A. The elements of this proposal
> Response in the numbers proposal:
>> 1. ICANN to continue as the IANA Functions Operator for the IANA 
>> Numbering Services, hereinafter referred to as the IANA Numbering 
>> Services Operator, via a contract with the RIRs;
>> 2. IPR related to the provision of the IANA services remains with 
>> the community;
>> 3. Service Level Agreement with the IANA Numbering Services 
>> Operator; and
>> 4. Establishment of a Review Committee, with representatives from 
>> each RIR, to advise the NRO EC on the review of the IANA functions 
>> operator's performance and meeting of identified service levels.
>> 
> Question2:
> How will the Review Committee be established, how will it operate, and 
> how is it related to any other ICANN-related review committees?

2a: How will the Review Committee be established?

The Review Committee will be established by the RIRs, there will be equal 
representation from each RIR region, and members will be selected in an 
open, transparent, and bottom-up manner appropriate for each RIR region.

This is explained in section III.A.4 of the CRISP proposal:

  The RIRs shall establish a Review Committee [...].

  The Review Committee should be a team composed of suitably
  qualified Internet Number Community representatives from each
  RIR region. The selection of the Review Committee members
  should be conducted in an open, transparent, and bottom-up
  manner appropriate for each RIR region. There should be
  equal representation from each RIR region within the Review
  Committee.

Based on these requirements, RIRs will initiate the process of setting up 
the Review Committee. The RIR community already has precedents and 
well-established processes in selecting community representatives from 
each RIR region, such as selecting representatives for the ASO AC, and the 
CRISP Team.


2b: How will the Review Committee operate?

Based on the SLA, the Review Committee will review the level of service 
provided by the IANA Numbering Services Operator (ICANN at the time of the 
transition), and will report any concerns to the NRO EC.  The Review 
Committee will not do anything else.  The Review Committee's activities 
will be conducted in an open and transparent manner.

This is explained in section III.A.4 of the CRISP proposal:

  The RIRs shall establish a Review Committee that will advise
  and assist the NRO EC in its periodic review. The Review
  Committee will, as needed, undertake a review of the level of
  service received from the IANA Numbering Services Operator and
  report to the NRO EC any concerns regarding the performance
  of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, including especially
  any observed failure or near-failure by the IANA Numbering
  Services Operator to meet its obligations under the proposed
  agreement. Any such Review Committee will advise the NRO EC
  in its capacity solely to oversee the performance of the
  IANA Numbering Services, and the Review Committee's advice
  and comment will be limited to the processes followed in the
  IANA Numbering Services Operator's performance under the
  proposed agreement. Activities of the Review Committee shall be
  conducted in an open and transparent manner. Reports from the
  Review Committee shall be published.

2c: How is the Review Committee related to any other ICANN-related
review committees?

It is not related to any other committees.

The Review Committee's role is to provide advice to RIRs in conducting 
review on the service level of IANA Numbering Services. Its scope is 
limited to the number resources component of the IANA function which has 
no overlaps with other ICANN-related review committees.


> III.A. The elements of this proposal
> Question3:
> Given the stated need for "communication and coordination" between the 
> communities, how is this to be achieved under this proposal?

This question seems to refer to the last paragraph of section III.A of the 
CRISP proposal:

  This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e., the
  number community, the protocol parameter community, and the
  name community) will have independent arrangements with
  the IANA Functions Operator related to maintenance of the
  specific registries for which they are responsible. At the
  same time, the Internet Number Community wishes to emphasize
  the importance of communication and coordination between these
  communities to ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such
  communication and coordination would be especially vital
  should the three communities reach different decisions
  regarding the identity of the IANA Functions Operator after
  the transition. Efforts to facilitate this communication and
  coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities
  via processes distinct from this stewardship transition
  process.

In the event that all three communities (numbers, protocol parameters, and 
names) choose the same IANA operator, then we expect that minimal 
coordination will be required. In the event that different IANA operators 
are chosen by different communities, then coordination will be required to 
ensure coherency of the IANA functions.

The numbers proposal merely records that coordination may be necessary for 
such future possibility.

If such event occurs in the future which require coordination, there is an 
existing mechanism which enables such coordination, as SOs and ACs 
representing the three operational communities. We could make use of such 
existing mechanism.

Regards,

Alan Barrett
vice chair of the CRISP Team

----- End forwarded message -----