[CRISP-TEAM] [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals

[Izumi Okutani]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2015/05/08 0:27, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> I believe our Principles are clear:
> 
>  - Termination on reasonable notice
>  - Termination in the event of uncorrected SLA violation
>  - Periodic recompete
>  - No interdependency of the three contracts
> 
> I have not heard any desire to amend those Principles from the many hundreds of members of the Numbers community who have spoken with me in the past few months.


Just to clarify on "Termination in the even of uncorrected SLA violation", we have listed this, to clearly indidate it as a consequence of SLA violation.
I am not sure if we have consensus that this should be the only reason for termination.

At the same time, as I raised at the last call, I think it is important to give assurance in some concrete form that the IANA Numbering Services will remain stable, even with the potential change of the IANA operator.

> In addition, what I���ve heard (and yes, this is hearsay, so of no direct bearing on anything, just for informational purposes) from a number of members of the US Congress, is that they do not wish to see any less strict accountability of ICANN to its post-transition overseers than currently exists to the US government.

So would it be a fair interpretation to say that the numbers proposal address it, by replacing the NTIA's role as the contractor with the RIRs?


Izumi


>                                 -Bill
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 7, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at netnod.se> wrote:
>>
>> Indeed. I agree with Andrei. I also note that the letter addresses the CWG and the CCWG, but not the other operational communities.
>>
>> Nurani
>>
>>
>>> On 7 maj 2015, at 14:47, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>> I see your point Andrei. It is an important difference.
>>> In the numbers proposal we don't restrict the conditions.
>>>
>>> Izumi
>>>
>>>> On 2015/05/07 21:22, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>>>> Yes, indeed. But I do not think we see the ability to choose an operator
>>>> for the IANA numbering service as a "fall back mechanism", and only in
>>>> case of not performing its function. It is a subtle, but important
>>>> difference in perspectives, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>>>
>>>> Izumi Okutani wrote on 07/05/15 13:49:
>>>>> FYI. Good news.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals
>>>>> Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 22:19:59 +0000
>>>>> From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
>>>>> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed  agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime  contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity."
>>>>>
>>>>> The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability.    ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required  by the community.   An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing.   We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Bruce Tonkin
>>>>>
>>>>> Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CRISP mailing list
>>>>> CRISP at nro.net
>>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CRISP mailing list
>>> CRISP at nro.net
>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
> 
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=TyAj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----