[NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Sat Jan 10 21:57:10 CET 2015


Hello Seun,


I'd like to join Alan in expressing appreciation for taking a look at
the second dratt of our proposal in details.

We haven't discussed your comments in the CRISP Team yet, but I'd like
to share my understanding is consistent with Alan's in all the points.

Just to hightlight on two points -

I'll bring it up to the CRISP Team about the wording for "the NRO EC".

Noted that while you are fine with the current wording (I assume that's
what you meant by "Fine by the suggested edits" and happy to be
corrected) but the RIRs are your preference.

Regarding the selection of the Review Committee, there was no consensus
in the CRISP Team to include description to use selectiion process as in
the NRO NC.

At one point, we agreed to incorporate this but it was later raised that
this is the process to be established by the NRO EC. Therefore it is not
appropriate to pre-define details of a specific process at this stage,
which is not the process the CRISP Team takes the responsiblities for.

You raised a good question, given that there was support expressed on
this mailing list as you have observed, and thank you for raising it.
This may also help others who expresss upport about this concept to
understand the status.

See also my comments inline.


On 2015/01/11 2:17, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
> 
> Seun,
>>
>> Thank you very much for your comments.  It's good to know that people are
>> reading the draft carefully.
>>
>> What follows are my personal opinions, not the official position of the
>> CRISP Team.
>>
>> On Fri, 09 Jan 2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>
>>
>> I would expect that the various regional communities would tell the RIRs
>> whether or not they want to keep the contract with ICANN or to move the
>> contract elsewhere, and the RIRs would tell the NRO EC.  Perhaps it would
>> make sense to say that in the document?  Or perhaps it would make sense to
>> say "the RIRs" instead of "the NRO EC" may in the future make a decision.
>> I'd like to hear opinions from others on this point.
>>
> 
> Fine with the suggested edits but "the RIRs" as preference

Noted. As mentioned above, I will take it up to CRISP Team for a
possible consideration about the wording.

> 
>>   - Ref: Page 10 Last paragraph of III.A.2: While the preference is
>>> indicated, it is not not indicated what will be acceptable incase the other
>>> communities don't agree with the preference. I will suggest similar
>>> statements used to cover the reverse DNS delegation also be indicated
>>> (although reworded in a manner that allows for continued access of the
>>> domain and name and not necessarily a transfer)
>>>
>>
>> This is the part that says "The transfer of the IANA trademark and
>> iana.org domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination
>> with the other affected communities of the IANA functions, namely protocol
>> parameters and names."
>>
>> I think it's up the the ICG to combine the proposals from all communities
>> into a combined transition plan.  The ICG charter requires their combined
>> proposal to "have broad community support" (see <https://www.icann.org/
>> resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en>), so I expect the ICG
>> to seek confirmation if they are unable to incorporate all our points.
>>
> 
> Correct! my question is when/if the ICG gets back due on the fact that
> there is no agreement from other communities is it at that time that CRISP
> will re-engage the community determine what is an acceptable compromise? if
> that is the case then fine otherwise.....

The ICG will consult the community about the combined proposal, so there
will be another opportunity for the community to comment on this point.

 https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-01-07-en

>>
>> I don't understand your point about reverse DNS.
>>
> 
> ....i was suggesting we indicate access rights clause (like it was written
> for the DNS delegation) to allows to access the iana.org and IANA in case
> there arise a need to transfer to another operator (but i should note its a
> minor concern)

If you are refering to :

"It is also the expectation of the RIR communities that non-public
information related to the IANA number resource registries and
corresponding services, including the provision of reverse DNS
delegation in IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA, is managed by the IANA operator
and will be transferred to its successor(s) along with relevant rights."

It is not related to "iana.org", and we are not proposing this to be
transfered to the IETF Trust.

Noted this is a minor concern and thank you for stating this clearly.

>>
>>   - Ref: page 14 ...*NRO EC* shall establish a Review Committee...: May i
>>> know why the CRISP still maintained the section in bold? after receiving
>>> comments indicating that review committee be selected with community
>>> involvement (for instance in a manner used in selecting the NRO NC)
>>> Otherwise i disagree with that section and suggest replacing NRO EC with
>>> "...RIR community"
>>>
>>
>> I don't know what section is in bold.  Please could you give section
>> numbers, not page numbers, when referring to parts of the document.  I
>> assume you are talking about section III.A.4 "Establishment of a Review
>> Committee".
>>
> 
> Ditto
> 
>>
>> There was opposition to the idea that the CRISP proposal should say that
>> the Review Committee should be selected similarly to the way the NRO NC is
>> selected, so the proposal doesn't go into that level of detail.  Instead,
>> it just says that the members will be suitably qualified and will be from
>> all RIR regions.
>>
> 
> Just to be clear, was that opposition from within CRISP or from this list?
> because i think there were comments in support from the floor

You are correct, the opposition was expressed within the CRISP Team.

>>
>> Perhaps it would make sense to add something about each RIR developing
>> their own mechanism for selecting Review Committee members.
>>
> 
> I think the review committee membership requirement should be uniform and
> the selection process be uniform too.
> 

Let me bring this up to the CRISP Team.

For the CRISP Team to be able to made adequate considerations, would you
be able to share what is the concern you are trying to address by adding
this?



Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani



More information about the ianaxfer mailing list