[CRISP-TEAM] [Feedback before UTC13:00 10/7] Re: Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG
john.sweeting at twcable.com
Mon Oct 5 19:41:10 CEST 2015
On 10/5/15, 1:36 PM, "crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of Izumi Okutani"
<crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>Many thanks Nurani for initiating discussions. I agree with the responses
>on both points.
>Made some additions marked in *, mainly for more clarity.
>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
>* 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:
> "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
>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
>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.
>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:
>> "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
>> 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,
>>> 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 ICG¹s 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 ICG¹s 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
>>> Please let us know if any of our questions require clarification.
>>> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
>>> ianaxfer mailing list
>>> ianaxfer at nro.net
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>CRISP mailing list
>CRISP at nro.net
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
More information about the CRISP