[CRISP-TEAM] Formal communication to the CWG
nurani at netnod.se
Thu Mar 19 14:01:40 CET 2015
In our last teleconference, we had a discussion about the developments in the CWG community, and that there are proposals on the table in that group that could affect the numbers community (as well we the IETF community).
There was general agreement that given this, and the compressed timeline produced by the CWG, there is increased need for communication and collaboration if we want the ICG to meet the final submission deadline.
I have drafted a text below, and I would like to suggest that we send this to the CWG chairs, officially requesting that they inform us of any developments that affect the numbers community, so that we can consult and respond appropriately.
I suggest that we also reach out informally to the IETF chairs beforehand to flag this, and that they are cc:ed on our communication to the CWG chairs.
Can I also propose that once we have sent this to the CWG chairs, Alan communicates this to the ICG. (Alan, do you think this makes sense?)
Please let me know what you think of this suggested way forward (and the text below)!
To: the Co-Chairs of the CWG-Names
cc: the Co-Chairs of the IETF IANAPLAN WG
I am writing to you as Chair of the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team, responsible for preparation of the numbers community’s response to the ICG’s Request for Proposals. As you know, this proposal was delivered to the ICG on 15 January, and is available at:
The ICG’s decision to seek proposals from the three separate affected communities reflects the distinct needs, mechanisms and historical development of these three communities. At the same time, developing a proposal that satisfactorily addresses stewardship of all the IANA functions is a priority for all parties.
The revised timeline of this process proposed by the CWG-Names, with a CWG-Names proposal submission in June later this year, increases the need for efficient, collaborative and constructive work in the ICG as well as between all three stakeholder communities. We remain positive that a proposal satisfactory to all parties, can be produced through this process.
With this in mind, I would like to officially request that, as the CWG-Names progresses towards its final proposal, the Chairs of the CWG-Names communicate directly to the Chairs of the CRISP team, regarding any proposals or developments that might affect the numbers community.
This level of direct communication will allow all communities to consider the ramifications of such proposals ahead of the ICG consolidation process, consult appropriately within their communities, and, if necessary, develop appropriate responses. Such bottom-up consideration by all communities will be essential to the authority and success of any final proposal to the NTIA.
I look forward to hearing of your continued progress, and to work collaboratively with you to achieve a successful outcome for all, of the IANA Stewardship transition.
CRISP Team Chair
More information about the CRISP