[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions

[Nurani Nimpuno]

Thanks Izumi. Good to hear the update on your efforts to liaise with the IETF as well. 

I agree that we should inform the ianaxfer list as well. I think it suffices to forward the mail below to the list. 

All the best,

Nurani
 


> On 22 mar 2015, at 06:07, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> 
> CRISP Team,
> 
> The request sent to the CWG-Names Chairs as below.
> 
> Alan, plese bring this up to the ICG when you consider as appropriate.
> 
> The IETF is considering to make a simiar request seperately and said go ahead to send no need to wait for their confirmation about cc, so I have sent it without copying the IETF folks.
> I will also share that I have sent the request and keep them updated though.
> 
> Do we also want to update the IANAXFER list that we have made this request?
> I presonally think we should share, and let them know that we may consult them if there are any element in the names proposal which affects us and needs to provide feedback as the numbers community.
> 
> Izumi
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions
> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 13:57:55 +0900
> From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
> To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr at difo.dk>
> CC: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
> 
> Dear Jonathan and Lise,
> 
> 
> 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 for Naming Related Functions 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
> ___________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp