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

Wed Oct 7 16:51:44 CEST 2015

CRISP Team,

This is a friendly reminder that we will submit the reponse below to the ICG, at UTC23:59 7th Oct which has reflected Nurani's additional input.
I have quoted I.D of our proposal.

----
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 be 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 delegated to the IANA by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and “sub-delegations within this hierarchy are undertaken in accordance with the IANA’s address allocation practices” (RFC 3172). The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), in its role as the IANA Numbering Services Operator, administers these zones as “agreed technical work items” per the IETF-IANA MoU. This work is outside the scope of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) contract. We should not make changes to this existing arrangements, which are not a part of the NTIA contract. 
Further, Provision of reverse DNS services in the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains may also require interaction with the .ARPA registry. Collectively these registries are referred to as the IANA Number Registries.according to our understanding the CSC and IFR processes has its scope focused on the names related function. Therefore, we strongly believe that "in-addr.arpa" and "ip6.arpa" are to be excluded from the CSC and IFR processes. We And as such, the Number Community does not see a need to participate in the CSC and IFR. 
----

Izumi

On 2015/10/06 2:41, Sweeting, John wrote:
> +1
> 
> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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 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
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 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.
> 