[Internal-cg] PTI Slide 2 action items

[Alan Barrett]

[re-send with fewer typos]

Russ Housley and Alan Barrett were asked "to do the next level 
filtering for PTI related issues listed in the PTI slide deck, 
review comments received, and make recommendations for ICG course 
of action (http://icgsec.asia/1FTPuNB)” for those items on slide 
2.

Slide 2 contains the following text:

> CRISP / IANAPLAN - PTI
>
> B. (B. Carpenter-2, R. Dara-23, Google-31, Dyn-34, CONAC-50, 
> ISPCP-64, IAB-72, J. Panday- 89, IA-103, F. Hopkinson-105, CDT-107, 
> P. Nagaraj/G. Varma-113, NCSG-114, Access-116, ICANN Board-121, 
> Intel-122, K. McCarthy-128, DSCI-130, CRISP-133)
>
> B1. Clarify that IETF and RIRs will contract with ICANN, not PTI
> B1a Affirmed by 72, 133
>
> B2. IETF and RIR MoUs/SLAs need to clarify that subcontracts are allowed
>
> B3. Details of subcontract(s) between ICANN and PTI for protocol 
> parameters and numbers need to be worked out during proposal phase
>
> B6. Performance reviews of IFO; participation of OCs in IFR, CSC
>
> B6a. Proposal should clarify that IFR applies only to names (34, 72),
> CSC applies only to names (2)
>
> B6b. Numbers and protocol communities do not plan to participate in 
> IFR or CSC (72, 133)
>
> B6d. Complying with IFR recommendations should be mandatory for PTI (80)
>
> B7. NRO/RIRs not capable of holding contract with ICANN (105)
>
> Clarification exists in comment 72 and 133, but question is whether:
> - Do 72 and 133 cover the issue?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be included in ICG text?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be part of the CRISP proposal?


Our comments are:

> B1. Clarify that IETF and RIRs will contract with ICANN, not PTI
> B1a Affirmed by 72, 133

The proposal from the IANAPLAN and CRISP groups were clear that the 
IETF and RIRs will contract with ICANN.  This has also been confirmed 
in a comment from the IAB (comment number 72), and in a draft SLA from 
the RIRs <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf>, 
and in question 8 of the ICG FAQ 
<https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-faq/>

Proposed ICG action: No action needed.

> B2. IETF and RIR MoUs/SLAs need to clarify that subcontracts are allowed

The existing MoU/SLA between the IETF and ICANN 
<https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/ietf-icann-mou-2000-03-01-en> 
is silent about subcontracting, and therefore implicitly allows 
subcontracting.  The draft contract/SLA between the RIRs and ICANN 
<https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf> allows 
subcontracting with permission.  Question 8 of the ICG FAQ 
<https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-faq/> 
also says that subcontracting is allowed.

Proposed ICG action: No action needed.

> B3. Details of subcontract(s) between ICANN and PTI for protocol 
> parameters and numbers need to be worked out during proposal phase

This is an implementation issue.  Any contract between ICANN and PTI 
would need to satisfy the CWG-Stewardship requirements for the names 
functions, and satisfy the IETF and RIRs’ contracts with ICANN for the 
protocol parameters and numbers components.

Proposed ICG action: No action needed.

> B6. Performance reviews of IFO; participation of OCs in IFR, CSC
>
> B6a. Proposal should clarify that IFR applies only to names (34, 72),
> CSC applies only to names (2)

We agree that clarity is needed, and note that a similar issue exists 
with the terms “IFO” and “IANA Functions Operator” in the 
CWG-Stewardship proposal.

Proposed ICG action:
a: Ask CWG-Stewardship for confirmation that the terms “IFO” and IANA 
Functions Operator” in the names proposal apply only to the names part 
of the IANA functions;
b: ask CWG-Stewardship for confirmation that the CSC and IFR apply 
only to the names part of the IANA functions;
c: edit the FAQ and part 0 of the combined proposal to provide clarity.

> B6b. Numbers and protocol communities do not plan to participate in 
> IFR or CSC (72, 133)

The protocol parameters community has made it clear (see comment 72) 
that they do not intend to participate in committees related to names 
functions.  Alan Barrett thinks that the numbers community indicated 
that, if they participated in these processes at all, it would be only 
because the numbers community uses the .ARPA domain name, but he was 
unable to find a clear statement of that principle.

Proposed ICG action:
a: Ask CWG-Stewardship whether .ARPA is included in the CSC and IFR processes.
b: Ask CRISP whether the numbers community will participate in the CSC 
and IFR processes, and whether the answer depends on whether .ARPA 
is included or excluded.
c: Edit the FAQ and part 0 of the combined proposal to provide clarity.

> B6d. Complying with IFR recommendations should be mandatory for PTI (80)

Comment 80 (the english translation) says “We suggest the further 
clarification of whether the reviewing decisions or comments from IFR 
and Special IFR are mandatory to PTI, and that the manner in which to 
ensure that the reviewing comments from IFR and Special IFR can be 
implemented be made clear.”

Proposed ICG action: Ask CWG-Stewardship for clarification on whether 
PTI compliance is mandatory when decisions or recommendations are made 
by IFR or special IFR.

> B7. NRO/RIRs not capable of holding contract with ICANN (105)

Comment 105 suggests that the NRO is not capable of contracting with 
ICANN.  This question is moot because the contract will be between the 
5 RIRs and ICANN, not between the NRO and ICANN.

Proposed ICG action: No action needed.

> Clarification exists in comment 72 and 133, but question is whether:
> - Do 72 and 133 cover the issue?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be included in ICG text?
> - Should text from 72 and 133 be part of the CRISP proposal?

If the CRISP proposal is edited, then the numbers community is likely 
to insist on an additional public comment period, so edits to the 
CRISP proposal should be avoided if possible.

Edits to part 0 of the combined ICG proposal are somewhat easier.

Proposed ICG action: See the individual points above.


Alan Barrett and Russ Housley