[CWG-Stewardship] CWG response on .ARPA (Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG)

[Seun Ojedeji]

Dear all,

Some time ago, I was saying that responding to the ICG question related to
.ARPA in the manner we did may not be appropriate. Below is a draft
response of CRISP that clearly prefers that it's related .ARPA strings be
immune of CSC/IFR processes.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
Date: 7 Oct 2015 23:02
Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG
To: <ianaxfer at nro.net>
Cc:

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.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151008/2127505d/attachment.html>