[IANA-RC] Background: The CRISP proposal, the SLA, and the Review Committee

Jason Schiller jschiller at google.com
Tue Feb 14 15:44:04 CET 2017


In thinking about the role of the RC, I have consulted a number of
documents, as well as the discussions about the IANA transition in the ARIN
region.

Below is a quick list of the documents I have been referincing.

NRO EC -- REVIEW COMMITTEE CHARTER from the NRO EC:
https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Review-Committee-Charter_FINALclean.pdf

(CRISP team proposal)
Response to the IANA Stewardship TRansition Coordnation Group Request
for Proposals on the IANA from the Internet Number Community:
https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ICG-RFP-Number-Resource-Proposal.pdf

NTIA -- IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Assessment Report:
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/iana_stewardship_transition_assessment_report.pdf

NRO -- Internet Number Community Proposal FAQ:
https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/internet-numbers-community-proposal-faq/

NRO -- Internet Numbers Community Proposals (slide deck):
https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers_proposal-final.pdf

PTI responsibilities:
https://pti.icann.org/


___Jason


On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at nimblebits.net>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I thought it might be helpful to provide a little bit of background of the
> review committee before our first conference call on Wednesday, wearing my
> hat as (former) vice chair of the CRISP team. Apologies for the length of
> this mail.
>
> As a reference, it is be useful for everyone on the Review Committee to
> read the CRISP proposal:
> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ICG-RFP-
> Number-Resource-Proposal.pdf
>
> (In particular of course: III.A.4. Establishment of a Review Committee)
>
> THE CRISP PROPOSAL
> When the CRISP team was working on its proposal for the stewardship
> transition of the IANA numbering functions, there was strong consensus that
> the number community trusted the RIRs to manage the stewardship of the IANA
> functions through an SLA with IANA. To be clear, the IANA Numbering
> Services was, and is still a matter of simple bookkeeping.
>
> This was in fact, the core of the proposal. There was no feedback from the
> community, suggesting a need for new mechanisms or organisations to be set
> up post-transition. It was felt that all five RIR communities have strong,
> inclusive, bottom-up structures and that there were appropriate processes
> within each RIR region for the community to engage in the bottom-up
> governance of its RIR.
>
> THE SLA
> The CRISP proposal did intentionally not prescribe exact SLA text, as it
> was felt that was something that needed to be defined and negotiated
> between the RIRs and ICANN. Instead, the CRISP proposal defined a set of
> guiding principles for the RIRs and IANA to respect as they were finalising
> the SLA. The RIRs then proposed SLA text that was reviewed by the CRISP
> team and the community, and then negotiated with ICANN.
>
> THE REVIEW COMMITTEE
> It was however recognised that the SLA with IANA was a new arrangement.
> And as a community with a strong tradition of community participation, it
> was felt that there should be some, very lightweight mechanism for the
> community to assist the RIRs in its review of the IANA SLA performance. It
> would also provide the RIRs with a channel to seek input on the SLA
> performance, should it feel the need for this, without having to create a
> new mechanism each time.
>
> It is important to point that that it was agreed that we did not want to
> create an organisation or a committee that would grow into something more
> important than it had to be, or risk becoming something separate from the
> existing processes and structures within each regional RIR community.
>
> We therefore intentionally made the Review Committee very lightweight,
> with a very limited scope. It was further felt that the number community is
> well experienced in organising itself to carry out such work, so there was
> little need for the CRISP team to be over-prescriptive in the details of
> the RC. It was also well understood that the Review Committee would have
> very little work to do for the first five years, and would therefore have
> plenty of time to define its relevant framework.
>
> THE FORMATION OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE
> It might also be helpful to know that the reason the Review Committee was
> formed with members appointed to it, before the transition had even taken
> place, was not because there was a sense that there was a lot of work to
> take on. The RC was simply put together to give assurance to everyone,
> before the transition had taken place, that our community was well prepared
> to handle the transition.
>
> REVIEW COMMITTEE CHARTER
> We asked the NRO EC to define the charter which it has done here:
> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Review-
> Committee-Charter_FINALclean.pdf
>
> The charter is very clear about the role of the Review Committee being one
> of advising and assisting the RIRs in their review of the SLA performance.
> The RIRs have full time staff to carry out this work and it is not the role
> of the Review Committee to carry out the review itself, nor to redefine the
> SLA. As such, the Review Committees role is really quite simple and clean.
>
> I hope this background was helpful to people. I am of course happy to
> further clarify any of this if necessary during our call.
>
> I look forward to our call on Wednesday.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nurani Nimpuno
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rc mailing list
> Rc at nro.net
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://nro.net/pipermail/rc/attachments/20170214/201eec25/attachment.html>


More information about the Rc mailing list