[CRISP-TEAM] [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG

[Nurani Nimpuno]

One additional comment.  

> On 5 okt 2015, at 09:03, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at netnod.se> 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. 

We should probably clarify that the IAB “owns” .arpa. Therefore it should be excluded from the names’ processes. (There are good examples of coordination between the RIRs and the IAB under the .arpa domain before, when the RIPE NCC did enum delegations and got e164.arpa for this purpose.)

Thoughts?
Nurani


> 
> 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
>