[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Request for formal communication with CWG-Name

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Mar 20 07:01:48 CET 2015

FYI, my e-mail to the IETF IANA PLAN Chairs.
I have also copied Jari and Russ as the ICG representatives for the IETF.
(and Jari is also an area director)


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Request for formal communication with CWG-Name
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:00:05 +0900
From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
To: Marc.Blanchet at viagenie.ca, ldaigle at thinkingcat.com
CC: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com>, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>

Dear Marc and Leslie,

I am writing to you as the Chair of the CRISP Team, which consolidated the IANA stewardship transition proposal for the numbers community.

As you may be aware, there are some proposals discussed in CWG-Names which may affect the numbers and protocol parameters communities.
The CRISP Team have decided to make a formal request below, to the Chairs of CWG-Names: to communicate with us on any proposals which may affect the numbers community. 
Our current plan is to have this sent today, Friday 20th March.

We thought it may be worth sharing with you as the Chairs of the IETF IANA-PLAN WG, in case you are interested to consider a similar request for the protocol parameters.
We would like to keep you closely informed, if this is something of an interest for the IETF community as well. 

Would you therefore help me confirm, whether you would find it helpful to copy both of you, when we make this request to the CWG-Names Chairs?
I am looking forward to your feedback, especially if you prefer not to have you cc:ed. 

Please also feel free to let me know if there is anything else I can share including the background of this request.

Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani

To: the Co-Chairs of the CWG-Names

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 revised timeline increases the need for collaborative and constructive work in the ICG as well as 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 impact and potential compatibility issues among the 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 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, Alan Barrett
CRISP Team Chair, Vice-Chair

More information about the CRISP mailing list