[CRISP-TEAM] Responses to GAO questions

Thu May 14 23:28:35 CEST 2015

@Izumi
As you quoted some main documents, may be do  list them in reference:
-SLA
-Number resources proposal
- Request for Proposal  on a rebidding process (NTIA)

Warm regards,
/Janvier Ngnoulaye

2015-05-14 16:22 GMT+01:00 Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>:

> CRISP Team,
>
>
> This is a draft response to the second additional question.
> As Nurani has stated, I welcome comments by Friday 15, 12.00 UTC.
>
> After incorporating any feedback you may have, we will then send our
> response to the GAO.
>
> As had been suggested earlier on the CRISP Team ML through Nurani, we
> would like to share the response we submit to the GAO on the
> ianaxfer at nro.net ML.
>
> ----
> 2.    In its transition proposal the numbers community has proposed that a
> new contract be established between the IANA Numbering Services Operator
> and the five RIRs. This arrangement would allow the RIRs to cancel and
> rebid the contract if needed, for example, to find a new IANA Numbering
> Services Operator. If such a circumstance were to arise, how easy or
> difficult would this be in practice and to what extent might this create
> any disruptions?
>
> [Draft response]
>
> As stated in our proposal, there are no concrete needs or plans to change
> its operator at this point. The Internet Numbers community is proposing the
> ability for the RIRs to choose the IANA Numbering Services operator as a
> possibility if needed. The arrangement to terminate and rebid the contract
> if needed already exists in the contract between the NTIA and ICANN as the
> IANA Functions Operator.
>
> The SLA provides the RIRs with the option to terminate the SLA during its
> term if the Operator failures to perform and, after going through
> arbitration, fails to remedy such failure to perform, or not to renew the
> SLA at the end of its term.
>
> With regards to termination, we note that the NTIA contract provides the
> US government with the same reasons for termination (page 2 of the NTIA
> contract and sections E.2.g.1.ii and I.67.i of the NTIA contract).
> Additionally the NTIA contract gives the option to the US government to
> terminate the NTIA contract for more reasons (sections I.51 and I.52 of the
> NTIA contract).
>
> Based on the above, we believe that the SLA provides fewer reasons for the
> termination of the SLA than the NTIA contract and thus it would not be
> easier to terminate and rebid the SLA.
>
> With regards to rebidding for the contract, the NTIA has a rebidding
> process today called "Request for Proposal", which allows proposals from
> anyone interested in serving as the IANA Functions Operator, not limiting
> candidates of the bidding to the existing IANA Functions Operator (as an
> example of this process we refer to the last re-issue of the Request for
> Proposal (RFP) made on April 16, 2012, published on the NTIA website).
>
> Further, the numbers community have listed "Continuity of Operations" in
> the numbers proposal, as a principle to be reflected in the SLA, "If, at
> the end of the term, the RIRs decide to sign an agreement for provision of
> IANA Numbering Services by a different party, the previous IANA Numbering
> Services Operator will be obliged to ensure an orderly transition of the
> function while maintaining continuity and security of operations."
>
> As stated in the number resources proposal, the Internet Number Community
> has expressed its strong desire for stability of the IANA Numbering
> Services. RIRs, as the direct customers of the IANA Numbering Services,
> will be more strongly affected than NTIA, if any disruptions are created as
> a result of a cancelation or rebidding of the contract. It is in the
> interests of the RIRs to ensure continued stability of the IANA Numbering
> Services in a possible event of changing the IANA Numbering Services
> operator.
> ----
>
> Izumi
>
> On 2015/05/14 20:51, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > As explained by Izumi, the GAO had two additional questions that they
> sent to us after our meeting:
> >
> >       1.      What is the role of the Address Supporting Organization
> (ASO)
> >       in the policy development process for the numbers community?
> >       What, if any, role do the other ICANN supporting organizations or
> >       ICANN advisory committees play any role in policy development for
> >       the numbering community?
> >
> >       2.      In its transition proposal the numbers community has
> proposed
> >       that a new contract be established between the IANA Numbering
> Services
> >       Operator and the five RIRs. This arrangement would allow the RIRs
> to
> >       cancel and rebid the contract if needed, for example, to find a new
> >       IANA Numbering Services Operator. If such a circumstance were to
> arise,
> >       how easy or difficult would this be in practice and to what extent
> might
> >       this create any disruptions?
> >
> > I have drafted a response to the first question below. Izumi will
> circulate her draft on the second question shortly.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~
> >> 1.    What is the role of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) in
> the policy development process for the numbers community? What, if any,
> role do the other ICANN supporting organizations or ICANN advisory
> committees play any role in policy development for the numbering community?
> >
> > Internet Number Resource Policy development does not take place within
> the ICANN community, but within the five separate regions of the RIRs, in a
> bottom-up, open and inclusive manner.
> >
> > Each RIR community develops its own "regional number resource policies"
> according to their established bottom-up policy development processes,
> based on the needs within that community. These processes are well
> established and documented, and are open to any interested party or
> stakeholder group, without restriction.
> >
> > There is also a limited set of policies that apply to the allocation of
> Internet resources by IANA to the RIRs, called "global policies". There are
> currently three global policies, for the allocation of IPv4 addresses, IPv6
> addresses and AS numbers respectively, from IANA to the RIRs. These
> policies act as the framework for the relatively simple and administrative
> task of allocating blocks of such number resources to the RIRs by IANA.
> >
> > The global policies are also developed in a bottom-up manner, through
> each regional RIR community, with each RIR community ratifying the proposed
> global policy. The role of the ASO Address Council (ASO AC), is to receive
> the coordinated proposal, review the process by which the proposal was
> developed and ratified and, under the terms of the ASO Memorandum of
> Understanding, and pass it to the ICANN Board of Directors for ratification
> as a global policy.
> >
> > REFERENCES
> > ASO Memorandum of Understanding
> >
> https://aso.icann.org/documents/memorandums-of-understanding/memorandum-of-understanding/
> >
> > Internet resource global policies
> > https://www.nro.net/policies/global-policies-development-process
> > ~~~~~~~
> >
> > We hope to submit our responses at the end of this week. Therefore, can
> I please ask you to provide your comments on this before Friday 15, 12.00
> UTC.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Nurani
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 23 apr 2015, at 20:23, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >>
> >> The meeting with GAO went well I think.
> >>
> >> As highlights, below are the facts which were not initially recognized
> by GAO and helped that we shared:
> >>
> >> RIR Forum
> >> - They weren't aware that RIRs are not just the registries but also
> facilitating an open, inclusive bottom-up community
> >>   Therefore, transitionining the stewardship of IANA Numbering Services
> to RIRs mean that this numbering community in RIR forums, which anyone can
> participate would be able to have their voices
> >>
> >> PDP for Numbers are outside the ICANN
> >> - ICANN forum and its community for policy development is focused on
> names. Bottom up policy development for the Number Resources Community
> takes place outside the ICANN, in the RIR forums.
> >>   While the ICANN Board approves the global policies, this is at the
> very last point of the PDP for the numbers and elements of their decision
> making is minimal, such as ensuring the process was followed.
> >>   ASO as the representatives of the each RIR regions provide advice to
> ICANN Board in approval of the global policies.
> >>   It should also be noted that global policies are limited only for
> distribution from IANA to RIRs, and most pollicies are developed under each
> RIR forums, independently, for distribution by RIRs to its respective
> stakeholders
> >>
> >> There was also a question related to ensuring accountability of the
> IANA Numbering Services through the SLA - wouldn't the ability to terminate
> the SLA lead to splitting of the IANA functions?
> >> Are there other ways to address accountability before going to this
> option?
> >>  - I explained that the idea is to have the community have this
> possibility if we wish
> >>  - There are clauses in the SLA which ensures the serive level be met
> with specific points listed
> >>  - ICANN has been providing the IANA Numbering Services to the RIRs for
> over 20 years and the service level as been satisfactory
> >>
> >>
> >> Other questions are based on what Nurani has shared on the CRISP Team
> ML as the final version, with our reponses basically in line with what we
> had written out (they were not submitted to GAO but as a reference for our
> verbal reponses).
> >>
> >> As the next steps:
> >> We are planning to submit a written reponse to GAO to share accurate
> information for the questions. We will share with the CRISP Team before
> submission.
> >>
> >> Nurani and I discussed that it would be helpful to share the complete
> response from us with the global ianaxfer list as well, and possibily
> publish it.
> >> I think this would be good not just for transparency but anyone who are
> not familiar with our community would be able to understand better about
> the number resources community's involvement with IANA and our observations
> on the stewardship transition.
> >>
> >> Would be interested to hear your feedback, especially if you have other
> thoughts on this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Izumi
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2015/04/23 20:07, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> In preparation of our conference call with the GAO today, Izumi and I
> further polished the answers to the questions provided by the GAO.
> >>>
> >>> Please find attached the final text.
> >>> As we will have a conference call to discuss the questions, the
> document is merely a guide for our discussion.
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>> Nurani
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 21 apr 2015, at 10:23, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Many thanks Nurani and thank you to ARIN and RIPE NCC for helping us
> draft the response.
> >>>> Attached are my suggested edits.
> >>>>
> >>>> As a general observation, there was nothing in the responses which I
> diagree but I felt some responses would work better if they were placed in
> other parts and wasn't sure if we responded to all questions.
> >>>> I therefore moved some of the responses and I added some additional
> response to the parts which seemed to me that we haven't responded to the
> questions.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> CRISP Team,
> >>>> I am happy to clarify on anything which is not clear in my edits/your
> feedback is welcome especially on possible concerns.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Izumi
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2015/04/20 18:03, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please find attached draft text responding to the questions sent to
> us by the GAO.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have used a lot of the text that ARIN put out (thank you ARIN!)
> and the RIPE NCC offered to draft this text (thank you RIPE NCC!).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Izumi and I have the call with the GAO on Thursday UTC 13.00 to
> provide the number community's response to their questions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We would welcome any comments, additions or corrections to the text
> that you have. Please provide your input to the list by tomorrow, Tue 21st
> at 13.00 UTC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nurani
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> CRISP mailing list
> >>>>> CRISP at nro.net
> >>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> <Clean_GAO Engagement on the Internet Domain Name System Discussion
> Guide_EDIT_IO20150421.docx><Redline_GAO Engagement on the Internet Domain
> Name System Discussion
> Guide_EDIT_IO20150421.docx>_______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150514/b1a8975f/attachment.html>