[CRISP-TEAM] Formal communication to the CWG

[Izumi Okutani]

Thanks for your feedback John, Alan.

I see Alan's point this may not be necessary, as the fact that chairs are communicating with the counter part chairs shows this is an official request.
I also thought about adding we had discussions within the CRISP team to possibly substitute but I felt this is obvisous as well, so sticking with the simple removal of "offically".

Below is the reflected version - if anyone has any concerns about the removal, please express it within today 20th March UTC23.59.

As an update on the IETF, they are apparently currently coordinating.
The initial plan was to send it out today but I think we can wait until Monday 23r March if this give us a possibility of a better coordination.
I would like to send this out to the CWG-Chairs before 24th March as they have a face to face meeting in Istanbul on 26-27th March.

Izumi

------
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 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
___________________




On 2015/03/20 19:42, Alan Barrett wrote:
> Thank you, Nurani for drafting this, and Izumi for coordinating edits.  I am happy with this version, except that I would remove the word "officially" from "I would like to officially request ...".
>
> --apb (Alan Barrett)
>
>> ------
>> To: the Co-Chairs of the CWG-Names
>> cc: the Co-Chairs of the IETF IANAPLAN WG and Alan
>>
>>
>> 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 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
>> ___________________