[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] NRO-EC response to ICG re CWG draft (was: Re: Transition proposal for naming-related functions)

Andrei Robachevsky robachevsky at isoc.org
Mon May 11 09:13:17 CEST 2015

FYI. I am sure you all read the ianaxfer list, but just in case.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[NRO-IANAXFER] NRO-EC response to ICG re CWG draft (was: Re:
Transition proposal for naming-related functions)
Date: 	Sun, 10 May 2015 19:09:24 +0000
From: 	John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
To: 	ianaxfer at nro.net <ianaxfer at nro.net>

On Apr 29, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in
<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
> Dear RIR community,
> You may be aware that the Cross Community Working Group developing the
> IANA stewardship transition proposal for naming-related functions has
> recently put its proposal out for public comment
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en>.
> We wanted to highlight a few aspects of the proposal that we believe
> would benefit from review and perhaps comment by your community:
> 1) Overlaps and interdependencies (Section I.D and Annex A)
> As in your community’s proposal, the CWG proposal contains information
> concerning overlaps and interdependencies with the other communities.
> 2) Post-Transition IANA (Section III)
> The CWG is proposing that a new separate legal entity, Post-Transition
> IANA (PTI), would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN. The existing
> IANA naming functions, administrative staff and related resources,
> processes, data and know-how would be legally transferred into PTI.
> Your community may want to consider a number of associated implications:
> * The likelihood that personnel and resources dedicated to the
> non-naming IANA functions would be moved to PTI. Your community may
> also want to consider its view on having all IANA functions provided
> by the same entity or allowing them to be separated.
> * Contracting. For existing or new contracts your community may have
> related to the IANA functions, there may be multiple options
> available, including maintaining existing contracts with ICANN and
> letting them subcontract their execution to PTI, assigning an existing
> contract to PTI, or re-contracting with PTI.
> * PTI Board. The composition of the PTI Board is not highly specified
> in the CWG proposal. There has been some discussion within the CWG
> about including representation for the RIRs and IETF on the PTI Board.
> * PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as the
> CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by ICANN.
> Your community may want to consider its view of this whole ownership
> versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities.
> 3) Liaisons to IANA Functions Review Team (Section III.A.i.d and Annex F)
> The CWG proposes that the performance of IANA be periodically reviewed
> post-transition and that the numbering and protocol parameter
> communities be offered the opportunity to appoint liaisons to the team
> performing reviews.
> 4) Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process (Annex I)
> The CWG proposes a complain resolution process for naming-related
> services, but which is open to the protocol parameters and numbering
> resources communities.
> If the ICG can be of further assistance in coordinating your review or
> understanding of the CWG proposal, please let us know.
> Thanks,
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG

FYI - A response from Axel Pawlik (NRO Chair) to ICG’s query re: CWG
draft is attached.

I would encourage everyone in the Internet numbers community to consider
the CWG draft
and comment as they feel appropriate on the CWG consultation - it
remains open for 10 more
days -


John Curran
President and CEO

> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Numbers community proposal contact points with CWG’s Draft IANA
> Stewardship Transition proposal
> Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 17:58:17 +0200
> From: Axel Pawlik <axel.pawlik at ripe.net <mailto:axel.pawlik at ripe.net>>
> To: comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15 at icann.org
> <mailto:comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15 at icann.org>
> CC: icg-forum at ianacg.org <mailto:icg-forum at ianacg.org>
> To: CWG-Stewardship
> Cc: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)
> Dear colleagues of the CWG, and the ICG,
> We observe that the CWG has proposed that a new legal entity, the
> "Post-Transition IANA" (PTI) would be formed as an affiliate of ICANN to
> handle the existing IANA naming functions, including the transfer of
> administrative staff and related resources, processes, data and know-how
> from the present IANA operation.  It is our understanding that IANA
> personal and systems are presently shared among IANA tasks
> performed in support of names, numbers, and protocol registry
> activities, and as a result, the formation of PTI would result in
> non-naming IANA functions also being moved into PTI.
> The Internet numbers community’s IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
> (as developed by the CRISP team) calls for ICANN to continue as the IANA
> Functions Operator for the IANA numbering services by means of a Service
> Level Agreement (SLA) with the RIRs.  At this time, we expect the RIRs
> to follow that approach, and thus to rely upon the SLA contractual
> measures with ICANN for oversight of the provision of IANA Internet
> numbering services.  We do not expect the numbers community to rely upon
> the proposed PTI separation from ICANN for purposes of oversight of IANA
> numbering services, but also do not foresee any incompatibility between
> the CWG’s proposal for formation of the PTI and our contracting with
> ICANN for its continuance as the IANA Numbering Services Operator.
> We understand that (per the CWG proposal) the PTI would be formed as an
> wholly owned affiliate of ICANN, and do not anticipate any issue related
> from this structure.  We would request that the mission of the PTI be
> strictly constrained to the operation of the IANA registries in
> conformance with adopted policy, and find the CWG proposed structure of
> the PTI Board (an ICANN-designated board with the minimum statutorily
> required responsibilities and powers) to be acceptable, in principle. We
> reserve further specific comments until additional details are
> available. We note that the CWG proposes a Customer Standing Committee
> to perform the operational responsibilities towards monitoring of
> performance of the IANA naming function, and the RIRs would be willing
> to provide a numbers community liaison for that Customer Standing
> Committee in consideration of the dependency that the numbers community
> has on IANA naming services related to the global reverse DNS domains
> We hope this information is useful to the CWG in finalization of its
> IANA stewardship transition proposal for the names community, and look
> forward to continued collaboration as needed.
> kind regards,
> Axel Pawlik,
> Chair,
> NRO Executive Council

-------------- next part --------------
ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer at nro.net

More information about the CRISP mailing list