[Internal-cg] Singapore questions on the numbers community proposal

Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net
Mon Feb 23 01:30:23 UTC 2015

Dear all,

In Singapore I heard the following questions about the numbers proposal, both from Mr Arasteh.

I have only just passed these on the the CRISP team for their response, so I expect we won’t hear back before the meeting on Wednesday.



> II.B.2. If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, identify which ones are affected and explain in what way. 
> A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA Numbering Services, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA Functions Operator, would have no significant impact on the continuity of IANA Numbering Services currently provided by ICANN. However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from the current system
> ICANN has historically provided IANA Numbering Services via the IANA Number Registries under the terms of the NTIA IANA Functions contract, and therefore IANA Numbering Services for the RIRs are currently subject to change in accordance with that agreement.

Question:  What specifically is the “element of oversight” which is referred to in this section, and how is it to be replaced under this proposal?

> III.A. The elements of this proposal
> • ICANN to continue as the IANA Functions Operator for the IANA Numbering Services, hereinafter referred to as the IANA Numbering Services Operator, via a contract with the RIRs;
> • IPR related to the provision of the IANA services remains with the community;
> • Service Level Agreement with the IANA Numbering Services Operator; and
> • Establishment of a Review Committee, with representatives from each RIR, to advise the NRO EC on the review of the IANA functions operator’s performance and meeting of identified service levels.
> This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e., the number community, the protocol parameter community, and the name community) will have independent arrangements with the IANA Functions Operator related to maintenance of the specific registries for which they are responsible. At the same time, 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.

Question: Given the stated need for “communication and coordination” between the communities, how is this to be achieved under this proposal?

Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list