[CRISP-TEAM] [NRO-IANAXFER] ianaxfer Digest, Vol 12, Issue 2
Janvier Noulaye
jnoulaye at gmail.com
Tue Sep 8 11:57:28 CEST 2015
Dear Izumi,
Go ahead with the explanation on the global ianaxfer list.
Warm regards,
/Janvier
2015-09-07 19:25 GMT+01:00 Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>:
> CRISP Team,
>
>
> This comment appears to be based on some misundertanding that Review
> Committee will not cover the performance of the IANA Numbering Services
> operated by PTI.
>
> If you take a look at the draft review committee charter, it states its
> main function is to provide period advice to assist the NRO EC in its
> periodic review of the service level of the IANA Numebering Services.
>
> (Can't do the exact quote due to bad format of copying from PDF)
>
> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Review-Committee-Charter-draft-Public-v1.pdf
>
> It does not affect whether IFO is ICANN or PTI, as the review on the IANA
> Numbering Services by the Review Committee can be covered either way.
>
> I would like to suggest clarifying this misunderstanding on the global
> ianaxfer list, as the comment is based on incorrect fact which may be
> misleading to others.
>
> I would like to post this explanation in 12 hours time from now, if there
> are no concerns expresesd by the CRISP Team memers but let me know if you
> have other thoughts.
>
>
>
> Izumi
>
> On 2015/09/07 18:28, Shiva Upadhyay wrote:
> > Dear CRISP Team,
> > Please see the comment below :
> >
> >
> >
> > WhenCRISP team was developing the numbering community proposal to be
> submitted tothe ICG, there was no such proposed body called Post Transition
> IANA (PTI) and numberingcommunity was satisfied with ICANN as IANA function
> operator (IFO) post transition. It proposed that reviewcommittee will
> advise the NRO EC regarding ICANN’s performance and meeting of
> identifiedservice levels (as per the new service level agreement).
> >
> > However,as per the above graphic, a new body PTIwill act as a IFO and
> there is no point ofreviewing the work/performance as per the new SLA of
> ICANN alone. Reviewingcommittee should also review the work/performance of
> PTI also in addition toICANN, since in future there will be a new body
> called PTI which will be servingas the IANA function operator.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Shiva Upadhyay
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 3:30 PM, "ianaxfer-request at nro.net" <
> ianaxfer-request at nro.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Send ianaxfer mailing list submissions to
> > ianaxfer at nro.net
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > ianaxfer-request at nro.net
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > ianaxfer-owner at nro.net
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of ianaxfer digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: Call for submission of comment to the combined ICG
> > proposal and the CRISP Team draft response (Izumi Okutani)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 08:57:33 +0900
> > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
> > To: Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>, "ianaxfer at nro.net"
> > <ianaxfer at nro.net>
> > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Call for submission of comment to the
> > combined ICG proposal and the CRISP Team draft response
> > Message-ID: <55E4E9ED.6010907 at nic.ad.jp>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> >
> > Dear Pranesh,
> >
> >
> > Thank you for your question about the CRISP Team comment and I note your
> concern about impact on the ability to chose a new IANA Numbersing Services
> Operator in the future.
> >
> >> Could the CRISP Team please elaborate on its reasoning behind believing
> that a singular PTI for all three functions will not hamper its stated need
> to be able to sever the contract with the INSO and choose a new INSO?
> >>
> >
> > The only change in the combined proposal by the ICG from the number
> community proposal, is PTI serving as the operator for all three IANA
> functions, instead of ICANN.
> > The number community has not proposed to split the IANA Functions by
> different operators at the time of the transition.
> >
> > * Since the number community has not proposed to splitting of the
> operator per function at the time of the transition,
> > splitting the IANA Function Operator at the time of the transition
> will cause inconsistencies with the number community proposal.
> > - The number community proposal says:
> > "considering the Internet Number Community?s strong desire for
> stability and a minimum of operational change,
> > the Internet Number Community believes that ICANN should remain in
> the role of the IANA Numbering Services Operator for at least the initial
> term of the new contract"
> > - Today, the IANA functions are operated by a single IANA Functions
> Operator (ICANN), and not by different Operators per IANA Function.
> > - It is stated in the number community proposal to have priority to
> maintain stability and continuity in operations of the IANA Numbering
> Services, very minimal changes to the arrangements.
> >
> > * The CRISP Team does not observe any material changes for PTI to serve
> as IANA Functions Operators instead of ICANN, as we understand this as
> merely changes in organizational hat of the IFO, without any changes in its
> staff, system nor operations.
> > - In terms of the conctractual arrangement, RIRs will continue to
> exchange the SLA with ICANN
> > - Requirements for the SLA based on the number community proposal are
> reflected in the 2nd SLA draft.
> >
> > * The CRISP Team believes the ability to chose a new IANA Numbering
> Services Operator if needed in the future is ensured by description in the
> SLA.
> > We observe the second draft SLA gives the RIRs the ability to do so by
> a single IFO, operated under PTI.
> > - The second draft SLA addresses this point by additional clause in
> under Section 15.11 Sub-Contracting.
> > (See the bottom of the e-mail for the exact lanauge in the SLA).
> > - The condition to Termination remains unchanged and consistent with
> the number community proposal under Article 10: Term and termination.
> >
> > Thanks for raising this point and I hope this clarifies your question -
> Please let me know if there is any thing which remains unclear about our
> observation.
> >
> >
> > Izumi
> >
> >
> > ------
> > Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services
> > [Public Draft v2.0 ? 5 August 2015]
> > https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0-Redline.pdf
> > ------
> >
> > "15.11.1 Operator shall not sub-contract or delegate to a third party
> entity for its provision
> > of the IANA Numbering Services under this Agreement without the prior
> written
> > consent of the RIRs, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
> >
> > 15.11.2 Notwithstanding the foregoing, any sub-contracting approved by
> the RIRs shall
> > not release Operator from, or diminish, its contractual obligations
> under this
> > Agreement and Operator shall remain fully liable to the RIRs under this
> > Agreement.
> >
> > 15.11.3 In the event that Operator sub-contracts or delegates the
> provision of the IANA
> > Numbering Services under Article 15.11.1 of this Agreement to a
> sub-contractor,
> > then Operator must, at the written request of the RIRs at their sole
> discretion,
> > enter into an agreement with the RIRs and sub-contractor to transfer or
> novate all
> > Operator?s rights and obligations under this Agreement to the
> sub-contractor."
> > ------
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2015/08/28 16:15, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
> >> Dear Izumi and all,
> >> Thank you for this.
> >>
> >> I must admit I am a bit surprised by this part of the response:
> >>
> >>> The names community proposes the creation of a new organization to
> manage all IANA functions, namely the PTI. Such a structure was not
> proposed by the other communities. However, we do not believe this creates
> an incompatibility for the other communities. The Number Community proposal
> for the RIRs to sign an SLA with ICANN is still possible to implement, and
> therefore still workable.
> >>>
> >>> Further, as a part of the composition of the PTI, the names community
> proposes creation of additional committees aimed at reviewing service
> levels and providing operational oversight (namely, the IFRT, special IFRT
> and the CSC).
> >>>
> >>> The Number Community requires no additional reviews or organizational
> structures beyond the Review Committee that is specified in the Number
> Community proposal. However, because the scope of the activity of these new
> structures is limited to the IANA naming function, we see no overlap nor do
> we see any incompatibility.
> >>
> >> When there is no overlap between the PTI proposal of the names
> community (a single new organization for all functions) and that of the
> Number Community, I don't see why this is a suggestion that should be
> accepted. I do in fact see it being a problem that the policy body for the
> names community (ICANN) will be the entity the Number Community would have
> to contract with, instead of the actual body which will be performing the
> IANA Numbering Services Operator (the "PTI" in the names community's lingo).
> >>
> >> Indeed, I see difficulty that arises from keeping the three operators
> together, since that limits severability of the contract. It would limit
> the ability of the Number Community to choose a new Operator if, by design,
> all three functions have the same Operator. It is far better for the
> operator of each of these functions being separate so that impediments
> don't exist between the ability of the Number Community to choose a
> different IANA Numbering Services Operator without affecting the operation
> of the IANA Names Services Operator or the IANA Protocol Services Operator.
> >>
> >> Could the CRISP Team please elaborate on its reasoning behind believing
> that a singular PTI for all three functions will not hamper its stated need
> to be able to sever the contract with the INSO and choose a new INSO?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Pranesh
> >>
> >> Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> [2015-08-27 08:30:06 +0900]:
> >>> Dear Colleagues,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We would like to share the attached CRISP Team response to the draft
> IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal for public comment.
> >>>
> >>> IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal: Call for Public Comment
> >>>
> https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/
> >>>
> >>> As described in the call for Public Comment by the ICG:
> >>>
> >>> "It is critical that the ICG build a public record that reflects broad
> community support for the proposal and justifies the proposal?s conformance
> with the NTIA criteria before the proposal can be submitted to NTIA.
> >>> Thus, commenters are encouraged to file comments in support of the
> proposal even if they have no concerns to express about the proposal."
> >>>
> >>> You can contribute to the process in three ways as described below.
> >>>
> >>> 1. Submit your own comment to the ICG
> >>> We strongly encourage you to submit your comment to the ICG.
> >>> This helps the ICG to build public record that the combined
> proposal has support of the broad community.
> >>>
> >>> - It is not a requirement to respond to all questions from the ICG.
> >>> Submission of comments expressing a general support for the
> proposal itself would be helpful enough, without responding to specific
> aspects of the proposal.
> >>> - Please feel free to use the CRISP Team response as a reference,
> in considering contents for your own submission.
> >>> Words in bold letters cover a general observation which could be
> applicable to anyone in the Number Community.
> >>> Details specific to the CRISP Team are in italics.
> >>>
> >>> Deadline of the submission: 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC
> >>> - You can submit your comment using the online form or by e-mail
> to <public-comments at ianacg.org>.
> >>> For details see:
> https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-period/#instructionssubmitcomment
> >>>
> >>> 2. Help spread the word
> >>> Encourage others to submit comments to the ICG.
> >>>
> >>> 3. Express support to the CRISP Team response to the ICG
> >>> Support expressed by e-mail to <ianaxfer at nro.net> before 7
> September 2015 23:59 UTC will be recorded as the level of support from the
> Number Community to the CRISP Team response.
> >>> We will share this in our response to the ICG, but will not share
> the names of individuals who expressed support. We therefore encourage you
> to submit your own comment to the ICG in addition, as described in 1.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We are looking forward to your contributions in this important phase
> of the process, as an opportunity to express support towards the transition
> which will be lead to bottom-up, community based oversight mechanism for
> the IANA functions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno
> >>> on behalf of the CRISP Team
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> ianaxfer mailing list
> >>> ianaxfer at nro.net
> >>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ianaxfer mailing list
> > ianaxfer at nro.net
> > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> >
> >
> > End of ianaxfer Digest, Vol 12, Issue 2
> > ***************************************
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150908/45c92304/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CRISP
mailing list