[NRO-IANAXFER] support for final draft

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Mon Jan 12 18:12:02 CET 2015


Dear Colleagues,


Based on discussions at the 11th CRISP Team teleconference, the CRISP
Team's position on the points raised by Jim Reid is as below:

>> I am sceptical about the practicality of a single contract between the
>> IANA operator and 5 RIRs in a post NTIA world. Though I suppose any
>> documented agreement for this new arrangement would effectively be a
>> contract in one form or another.

We felf leave the format of the contract for the RIRs's decision
together with other implementation details. As I will explain in later
e-mail thread, we plan to incorporate descripion in our coming proposal
that the community will be consulted before fixinig the SLA.


>> The composition of proposed review committee probably needs to be wider
>> than just those drawn from the RIR communities. IANA and possibly the
>> IETF's interests should be represented in this committee too.

Just to clarify, the Review Committee is to provide advice to RIRs when
conducting review of the SLA on the number resources function of the
IANA, to ensure it meet the service level required by RIRs, based on
description in the SLA.

The Review Committee proposed in the second draft of our proposal does
not provide such advice for other two functions, protocol parameters and
names. We therefore have no plan to suggest IANA and possibly the IETF's
interests should be represented in this committee in the proposal to the
ICG.

I hope my explanation above clarfies the rationale behind our position
related to Jim's comments.


Regards,
Izumi Okutani
The CRISP Team


On 2015/01/12 22:27, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> Hello Jim,
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
> 
>> I am sceptical about the practicality of a single contract between the
>> IANA operator and 5 RIRs in a post NTIA world. Though I suppose any
>> documented agreement for this new arrangement would effectively be a
>> contract in one form or another.
> 
> 
> Are you saying more than one contract (like 5 contract based on the number
> of RIRs) would be helpful? as i don't think the number of contracts
> matters, we have had RIRs sign a single MOU in the past and it doesn't
> reduce the strength of the agreement but rather improves it, in the sense
> that there has to be agreement among all the RIRs to modify the content of
> the contract. Having seperate contract could give room for different terms
> which could affect the already converged relationship existing between the
> RIRs globally
> 
> 
>> The composition of proposed review committee probably needs to be wider
>> than just those drawn from the RIR communities. IANA and possibly the
>> IETF's interests should be represented in this committee too.
> 
> 
> Hmm...i don't think i agree with this, perhaps you care to explain why IETF
> for instance should be represented in reviewing SLA for RIR related
> function? bearing in mind that the IETF is one of the 3 communities in this
> process
> 
> However this is implementation detail that is not needed at this stage.
>>
> 
> I think this particular details may be required at this stage
> 
> Thanks
> 
>>
>> Despite these reservations, I support the draft proposal.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 




More information about the ianaxfer mailing list