[Internal-cg] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG

Thu Oct 8 05:00:05 UTC 2015

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
> Date: October 7, 2015 at 3:02:16 PM PDT
> To: ianaxfer at nro.net
> Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG
> 
> Dear Alissa,
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you and the ICG for your efforts in reviewing the public comments and the continued work on the combined proposal, as well as on the overall process.
> 
> Please see below the draft response from the CRISP Team. We will have the CRISP Team call at UTC13:00 8th Oct to make a final confirmation, and will get back to you by UTC23:59 9th Oct, in case we indentify any changes needed.
> The responses are based on the Number Community proposal and the CRISP Team submission during public comment of the CWG-Stewardship proposal, therefore we wouldn't expect fundamental changes but there may be some additional points.
> 
> 
> 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. As such, the Number Community does not see a need to participate in the CSC and IFR. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Izumi and Nurani on behalf of the CRISP Team
> 
>> On 2015/09/25 7:04, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Dear CRISP team,
>> 
>> Based on comments received during the ICG’s 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 ICG’s 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? I
> f so, t
> he 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151007/9d705b6a/attachment.html>