[CRISP-TEAM] [Feedback before UTC13:00 10/7] Re: Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG

[Izumi Okutani]

Many thanks Nurani for initiating discussions. I agree with the responses on both points.
Made some additions marked in *, mainly for more clarity.


CRISP Team,

I propose the process below for our response to the ICG:

 1. We call for comments on the CRISP ML until Wed 7th Oct UTC13:00
    Freeze our response to the ICG by UTC23:00 Wed 7th Oct. Make submission to the ICG with a note that we may adjust minor wordings

 2. Double check our response at the CRISP Team call on 8th Oct 
    Note that 2 is an opportunity to double check verbally.
    *Unless*  there are crutial wording which must be changed from the ICG submission, we stick with the response submitted in step 1

Apologies for the short notice but our responses are already covered as a part of the number community proposal and I believe we are not making a new point.


* added from Nurani's draft
----
1. Yes we are willing to *commit to* coordinate with the other communities, as we have expressed in the Number Community Proposal:

 III.A.
 "the Internet Number Community wishes to emphasize the importance of communication and coordination between these communities to ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such communication and coordination would be especially vital should the three communities reach different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA Functions Operator after the transition. Efforts to facilitate this communication and coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities via processes distinct from this stewardship transition process."
 
The Number Community is willing to talk to the other communities about what coordination mechanisms, existing or new ones, that will necessary for this.

 
2. Any of the elements managed by the RIRs and covered by the Number Community Proposal, including the "in-addr.arpa" and "ip6.arpa" should be managed and reviewed according to the Number Community proposal. The Number Community has its own review processes for this. 

*As described in I.D of the Number Community proposal, "in-addr.arpa" and "ip6.arpa" are out of scope of the NTIA contract. We should not make changes to this existing arrangements, which are not a part of the NTIA contract.  
In addition, "in-addr.arpa" and "ip6.arpa" are refered as the IANA Numbering Registries. According to our understanding the CSC and IFR processes has its scope focused on the names related function. *Therefore, we strongly believe that it is to be excluded from the CSC and IFR processes. And as such, the Number Community does not see a need to participate in the CSC and IFR. 
----


Izumi


On 2015/10/05 16:03, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> Dear CRISP team,
> 
> The ICG has sent us the following questions that they want a response to by 7 October.
> 
> I have below drafted some rough points for our response:
> 
> 1. Yes we are willing to coordinate with the other communities, as we have expressed in the Number Community Proposal:
> 
> III.A.
> "the Internet Number Community wishes to emphasize the importance of communication and coordination between these communities to ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such communication and coordination would be especially vital should the three communities reach different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA Functions Operator after the transition. Efforts to facilitate this communication and coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities via processes distinct from this stewardship transition process."
> 
> The Number Community is willing to talk to the other communities about what coordination mechanisms, existing or new ones, that will necessary for this.
> 
> 2. Any of the elements managed by the RIRs and covered by the Number Community Proposal, including the in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa should be managed and reviewed according to the Number Community proposal. The Number Community has its own review processes for this. Therefore, we strongly prefer that this is excluded from the CSC and IFR processes. And as such, the Number Community does not see a need to participate in the CSC and IFR. 
> 
> I would be happy to hear your feedback on this!
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Nurani 
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
>> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG
>> Date: 25 september 2015 00:04:41 CEST
>> To: ianaxfer at nro.net
>>
>> Dear CRISP team,
>>
>> Based on comments received during the ICG’s public comment period, the ICG has a number of questions for the CRISP team. We are requesting responses to these questions ideally by 7 October at 23:59 UTC (prior to the ICG’s final call before ICANN 54 on October 8), or by 14 October at 23:59 UTC if the CRISP team requires more time. We realize this is an aggressive timetable, so please keep us informed if you feel you need further time.
>>
>> The ICG would like to state explicitly that we do not expect a further ICG public comment period to be necessary on the combined proposal in response to the answers that the CRISP team may provide. While the ICG reserves the right to seek further public comment if we receive extensive amendments from any of the operational communities, we do not expect to do so at this time.
>>
>> 1)  The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation as needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the Internet. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end up being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and coordination between the operational communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, the three operational communities need to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary when changing operator, whether by leveraging existing coordination mechanisms or new ones. Can the numbers operational community provide such a commitment? 
 If so, 
the ICG intends to reflect that and the commitments of the other communities in Part 0 of the transition proposal.
>>
>> 2)  Please could you say whether or not the numbers community intends to participate in the CSC and IFR processes proposed by the names community. If the numbers community will participate, then will the participation be limited to the .ARPA domain name, or will it be broader? If the .ARPA domain name is excluded from the CSC and IFR processes, would that affect whether or not the numbers community participates?
>>
>> Please let us know if any of our questions require clarification.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ianaxfer mailing list
>> ianaxfer at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>