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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Oct 8 08:00:03 UTC 2015


Hello Jonathan,

Our response did not specifically indicate that .ARPA is excluded from
CSC/IFR processes. It instead indicated that an optional seat will be
available should IAB or any representative of .ARPA is interested in
participating in CSC/IFR processes. It therefore seem we did not address
the specific function but the composition of the proposed teams.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 8 Oct 2015 08:40, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info> wrote:

> Seun,
>
>
>
> Since we say only that participation is an option, it does not seem to me
> that there is any contradiction between the draft response from the numbers
> community and our response.
>
>
>
> We could possibly have improved on our response, but as constructed, it
> seems to be satisfactory. Do you agree?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 08 October 2015 07:37
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] CWG response on .ARPA (Fwd: Re:
> [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG)
>
>
>
> 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/f2aa03bc/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list