[CRISP-TEAM] Formal communication to the CWG

[Nurani Nimpuno]

Hi Izumi,

Thanks. I'm happy with the edits you made. I agree that it is good to clarify that we are asking them to share it before the submission. And happy of course to add Alan as undersigned! :)

Just a minor comment below.

On 19 mar 2015, at 14:52, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

> Hi Nurani,
> 
> 
> Many thanks for this suggestion. I think it's an excellent idea for effective communication between us and the CWG-Name.
> 
> I made some changes to the draft:
> 
> - I tried to form the sentences so we don't sound like we are picking on them for the extension of the submission, as this is not our intention
>   (the draft wasn't either but would like to be careful)
> - Emphasise that they should share it in advance, not wait for the final proposal 
> - Added Alan as POC for the numbers
> 
> I welcome feedback from the CRISP team members for the coming 24h until UTC14:00 20th March. 
> In the meantime, I will communicate this with the Chairs of the IETF's IANA-PLAN WG, as we don't have to have a finalised text to let them know.
> 
> Thanks again Nurani.
> 
> 
> 
> Izumi
> 
> ------
> 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. 
> 
> It was helpful to have the update on the CWG-Names progress at the session in Singapore, including the revised timeline of the process proposed by the CWG-Names, with a CWG-Names proposal submission in June later this year.
> This increases the need for collaborative and constructive work in the ICG as well as

I agree with your edit of the first sentence in this paragraph. However, it makes it a little unclear what the "This" refers to. 

Can I suggest that we keep your edit but change the second sentence to:

"This revised timeline increases the need..."

Other than that, it looks good.
Thanks!
Nurani



>  between all three stakeholder communities to progress efficiently with the timeline. We remain positive that a proposal satisfactory to all parties, can be produced through this process. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> With this in mind, I would like to officially request that, the Chairs of the CWG-Names communicate directly to the Chair and Vice-Chair of the CRISP team, regarding any proposals or developments that might affect the numbers community in advance, and not wait for the final submission to the ICG.
> 
> This level of direct communication and collaboration 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 efficiently, rather than wait for inputs from the numbers community after the ICG consolidates proposal from all the operational communities. Such bottom-up cosideration 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. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Izumi Okutani, Alan Barrett
> CRISP Team Chair, Vice-Chair
> ___________________
> 
> 
> On 2015/03/19 22:01, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> 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)!
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> Nurani
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------
>> 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:
>> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ICG-RFP-Number-Resource-Proposal.pdf
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Izumi Okutani
>> CRISP Team Chair
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>> 
>