From jcurran at arin.net  Sat Nov  1 07:12:31 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:12:31 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] List of ARIN-region CRISP Team Volunteers
Message-ID: <4F607195-9A3E-428A-8189-4CFD2A0A9F09@corp.arin.net>

The following people have volunteered to serve as representatives of the ARIN
region on the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team (if
you feel you volunteered, but do not see your name on this list, please contact
me immediately) -

 Daniel Alexander
 Andrew Dul
 Paul Emmons
 David Huberman
 Sean Kennedy
 Rob Seastrom
 Jason Schiller
 John Sweeting
 Bill Woodcock

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


=== Call for ARIN-region CRISP Volunteers

Folks -

ARIN is seeking volunteers to join the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team
as representatives of the ARIN region.  The CRISP team will be responsible for producing the IANA
Stewardship transition proposal from the Number Community by 15 January 2015.

For background and details of the CRISP Team, please see the NRO website:

    <http://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team>

For background on the IANA Stewardship Transition planning process, please refer to the website
of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) -

    <http://ianacg.org>

Each RIR region will appoint 3 members to the CRISP Team, including two volunteer community
representatives and one RIR staff member.   Community members who are interested in serving
on the CRISP team should notify me <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> by ** 31 October 2014. **  After that date,
the list of those who volunteered will be published to the iana-transition at arin.net<mailto:iana-transition at arin.net> mailing list and
the ARIN Board of Trustees will appoint 2 volunteers from the list to serve on the CRISP team.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141101/075dafa7/attachment.html>

From jcurran at arin.net  Sat Nov  8 14:26:41 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 19:26:41 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] Appointment of ARIN-region CRISP team members
In-Reply-To: <4F607195-9A3E-428A-8189-4CFD2A0A9F09@corp.arin.net>
References: <4F607195-9A3E-428A-8189-4CFD2A0A9F09@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <0EF5604A-9B73-4ED1-A2C1-67C05B089AD1@corp.arin.net>

Folks -

The ARIN Board of Trustees has appointed Bill Woodcock and John Sweeting as the ARIN region
community representatives to the CRISP team, and Michael Abejuala as the non-voting RIR staff
member to the CRISP team.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


On Nov 1, 2014, at 4:12 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:

The following people have volunteered to serve as representatives of the ARIN
region on the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team (if
you feel you volunteered, but do not see your name on this list, please contact
me immediately) -

 Daniel Alexander
 Andrew Dul
 Paul Emmons
 David Huberman
 Sean Kennedy
 Rob Seastrom
 Jason Schiller
 John Sweeting
 Bill Woodcock

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


=== Call for ARIN-region CRISP Volunteers

Folks -

ARIN is seeking volunteers to join the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team
as representatives of the ARIN region.  The CRISP team will be responsible for producing the IANA
Stewardship transition proposal from the Number Community by 15 January 2015.

For background and details of the CRISP Team, please see the NRO website:

    <http://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team>

For background on the IANA Stewardship Transition planning process, please refer to the website
of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) -

    <http://ianacg.org<http://ianacg.org/>>

Each RIR region will appoint 3 members to the CRISP Team, including two volunteer community
representatives and one RIR staff member.   Community members who are interested in serving
on the CRISP team should notify me <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> by ** 31 October 2014. **  After that date,
the list of those who volunteered will be published to the iana-transition at arin.net<mailto:iana-transition at arin.net> mailing list and
the ARIN Board of Trustees will appoint 2 volunteers from the list to serve on the CRISP team.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141108/d757d5e7/attachment.html>

From jschiller at google.com  Mon Nov 10 09:37:44 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:37:44 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
	ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <21183182bebc48d78515b447f2d537df@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAD_dc6jMNmYCMuKBpELcWCCmYcaCrYsLxmv1hL2paFuV40RBLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEHCCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<21183182bebc48d78515b447f2d537df@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2XJ-SLZkM0p2dBM97bYk25S2osUfZFNSK6BLpV4xbp3Sw@mail.gmail.com>

I think there is a lot of confusion here first wrt to making the policy
that the IANA operators follow and the oversight that the IANA operators
follow said policy and meet the appropriate SLAs.

 Secondly, I think there is much confusion wrt the term "ICANN".  Some
times people use ICANN to me the small group of people employed by ICANN
who perform the IANA operations, some times people mean the ICANN Board who
ratifies Global Number Policy, sometimes people mean the entire ICANN
community who discusses Domain Name concerns and such, and some time people
mean a combination of some or all of those pieces.

First let me say WRT Global Policy making, we have a very good process, per
the ASO MoU
<https://aso.icann.org/documents/memorandums-of-understanding/memorandum-of-understanding/>.
This does not change with NTIA stepping away.

What does change is the contract
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf>
between the NTIA and ICANN for the IANA functions.  This document has some
vague language about SLAs.  I understand the "real" SLAs are in this doc
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/icann-proposal>.

I already recommended (and David Huberman supported) step 1: we pull out
those SLAs and put them in a document.  And asked ARIN staff to start on
that work.  I'd like to ask the CRISP team, specifically Michael for a
status on this work, and for that doc to be posted here once compiled.

Step 2: We then need to decide what legal vehicle we should have, and who
should it be between.  Should it be an MoU, a contract for services of the
IANA function, or some other legal document?  And should it be between the
five RIRs and the portion of ICANN that currently performs the IANA
service?  Or the NRO, or the incorporated NRO? Should the document contain
the SLAs or reference the SLA document?

Step 3: We need to define a transparent process to review the monthly
performance of the ICANN operator and its (in)ability to meet the SLAs and
adhere to Global Policy.

Step 4: We need a process for declaring the operator of the IANA service
out of compliance.  We also need a process for actions taken due to
non-compliance including threatening to remove the contract, and removing
the contract.

Step 5: We need a process for modifying the SLAs.

Step 6: We need to ensure our processes include the appropriate community
interaction for reviewing the operations of IANA function, and how those
measurements are taken, declaration of (non-)compliance, and changes to SLA
metrics.

___Jason

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:07 PM, David Huberman <
David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> As someone who very much wants to see the addressing function taken away
> from ICANN and moved directly to the NRO, I'm not sure MONC is any more
> useful than the NRO self-governing. The NRO is, after all, strictly
> bottom-up.  RIR members elect board members. RIR board members select a
> CEO.  The CEOs run the NRO.  There's accountability up and down the chain.
>
> My question is how do we leverage the NTIA's desire to step back to
> dissolve the MOU between USGOV and ICANN wrt the clause, "Establishment of
> policy for and direction of the allocation of IP number blocks;"
>
> David
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>
> [1] https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/icann-mou-1998-11-25-en
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141110/2bb2068f/attachment.html>

From jschiller at google.com  Mon Nov 10 09:41:54 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:41:54 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] Scope of work
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2Uund54-x7yWvK7udq87bmqSEwyiDuGh3AMiEMb9fPT+g@mail.gmail.com>

I see this work in various scopes of increasing size.

scope 1: documenting the metrics and putting them in a legal framework
scope 2: ensuring proper community over sight and modification of the
metrics.
scope 3: ensuring proper over sight of the IANA function (removal of
contract)
scope 4: ensuring proper over sight of ARIN
scope 5: ensuring proper over sight of the ICANN Board wrt ratification of
Global Policy Proposals
scope 6: ensuring proper over sight of ICANN

Scopes 1, 2 and 3 are required to transition the NTIA oversight.

To some extent 4 may be required if 2 and 3 depend on ARIN staff, or ARIN
board, or ARIN governance documentation, and not directly the membership.

Scopes 5 and 6 are not directly impacted by the transition of NTIA
oversight of the IANA function wrt number resources, but do relate to the
larger question of removal of the NTIA over sight of IACNN and the ability
of NTIA to pull the plug if things go wrong.

I would argue we should do the following:
1. quickly document the SLAs
2. propose a straw-man for who holds the legal contract including or
referencing the SLAs
3. document a process for modifying the SLA, transparently reporting of the
SLA performance to the community
4. propose a straw-man for declaring (non-)compliance, and the actions
taking up to and including removal of the contract
5. get community consensus on the straw-man for how holds the legal
contract, and what is the process for declaring (non-)compliance and taking
action.

Complete this by the end of the month.

Then while the CRIP team is working on unifying the outputs of the
communities, we should focus in on the increasing scope.

If the ARIN membership does not own the process for modifying the SLAs,
judging (non-)compliance, and taking action, then is there the proper
community oversight of those that do? (This needs to be complete prior to
the go/no-go decision of moving forward with the transition)

Then beyond that, does the ARIN membership have the proper oversight of
ARIN in general, such as changes to the ARIN mission statement, changes to
the ARIN bylaws, and recall of board members, etc.

Then beyond that, does the RIR membership have the proper oversight of the
ICANN Board wrt the ratification of Global Policy.  Are we comfortable with
the ability of the IACNN Board refusing to ratify a Global Policy and going
to arbitration?  Are we comfortable going to arbitration for every new
Global Policy Proposal?  Should there be some other ICANN Board oversight?
(we need to be comfortable with these answers prior to the go/no-go
decision of moving forward with the transition)

Then if we solve all those issues, we can look more generally into the
oversight of ICANN.


___Jason

-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141110/89b35663/attachment.html>

From jschiller at google.com  Mon Nov 10 17:10:01 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:10:01 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] lanic update,
	ideas for new oversight board (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <CAC4yj2XJ-SLZkM0p2dBM97bYk25S2osUfZFNSK6BLpV4xbp3Sw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD_dc6jMNmYCMuKBpELcWCCmYcaCrYsLxmv1hL2paFuV40RBLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEHCCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
	<21183182bebc48d78515b447f2d537df@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAC4yj2XJ-SLZkM0p2dBM97bYk25S2osUfZFNSK6BLpV4xbp3Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2Uf-0FSF0Gb8s6eOGzsmQzGNCAX0CAVaG4XuAKSGqjn-g@mail.gmail.com>

After further investigation, seems I am missing part of where the SLAs
are...

There was a consultation process on performance standards that occurred
from Nov 20, 2012 through Feb 28, 2013.
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-kpis-2012-11-20-en

The result of that consultation concluded that the IANA should provide a
monthly report on key performance indicators, as well as data about request
made and processed, and implementation of new global policy.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-iana-kpis-22apr13-en.pdf

The archive of those reports can be found here:
https://www.iana.org/performance/metrics
You will want section c293 for the number resources part (append #c293 to
any of the URLs in the archive to jump straight there)

___Jason

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
wrote:

> I think there is a lot of confusion here first wrt to making the policy
> that the IANA operators follow and the oversight that the IANA operators
> follow said policy and meet the appropriate SLAs.
>
>  Secondly, I think there is much confusion wrt the term "ICANN".  Some
> times people use ICANN to me the small group of people employed by ICANN
> who perform the IANA operations, some times people mean the ICANN Board who
> ratifies Global Number Policy, sometimes people mean the entire ICANN
> community who discusses Domain Name concerns and such, and some time people
> mean a combination of some or all of those pieces.
>
> First let me say WRT Global Policy making, we have a very good process,
> per the ASO MoU
> <https://aso.icann.org/documents/memorandums-of-understanding/memorandum-of-understanding/>.
> This does not change with NTIA stepping away.
>
> What does change is the contract
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf>
> between the NTIA and ICANN for the IANA functions.  This document has some
> vague language about SLAs.  I understand the "real" SLAs are in this doc
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/icann-proposal>.
>
> I already recommended (and David Huberman supported) step 1: we pull out
> those SLAs and put them in a document.  And asked ARIN staff to start on
> that work.  I'd like to ask the CRISP team, specifically Michael for a
> status on this work, and for that doc to be posted here once compiled.
>
> Step 2: We then need to decide what legal vehicle we should have, and who
> should it be between.  Should it be an MoU, a contract for services of the
> IANA function, or some other legal document?  And should it be between the
> five RIRs and the portion of ICANN that currently performs the IANA
> service?  Or the NRO, or the incorporated NRO? Should the document contain
> the SLAs or reference the SLA document?
>
> Step 3: We need to define a transparent process to review the monthly
> performance of the ICANN operator and its (in)ability to meet the SLAs and
> adhere to Global Policy.
>
> Step 4: We need a process for declaring the operator of the IANA service
> out of compliance.  We also need a process for actions taken due to
> non-compliance including threatening to remove the contract, and removing
> the contract.
>
> Step 5: We need a process for modifying the SLAs.
>
> Step 6: We need to ensure our processes include the appropriate community
> interaction for reviewing the operations of IANA function, and how those
> measurements are taken, declaration of (non-)compliance, and changes to SLA
> metrics.
>
> ___Jason
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:07 PM, David Huberman <
> David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> As someone who very much wants to see the addressing function taken away
>> from ICANN and moved directly to the NRO, I'm not sure MONC is any more
>> useful than the NRO self-governing. The NRO is, after all, strictly
>> bottom-up.  RIR members elect board members. RIR board members select a
>> CEO.  The CEOs run the NRO.  There's accountability up and down the chain.
>>
>> My question is how do we leverage the NTIA's desire to step back to
>> dissolve the MOU between USGOV and ICANN wrt the clause, "Establishment of
>> policy for and direction of the allocation of IP number blocks;"
>>
>> David
>>
>> David R Huberman
>> Microsoft Corporation
>> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>>
>> [1]
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/icann-mou-1998-11-25-en
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-transition mailing list
>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141110/889698a0/attachment.html>

From andrew.dul at quark.net  Tue Nov 11 17:33:16 2014
From: andrew.dul at quark.net (Andrew Dul)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:33:16 -0800
Subject: [Iana-transition] Scope of work
In-Reply-To: <CAC4yj2Uund54-x7yWvK7udq87bmqSEwyiDuGh3AMiEMb9fPT+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC4yj2Uund54-x7yWvK7udq87bmqSEwyiDuGh3AMiEMb9fPT+g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54628EAC.4050702@quark.net>

On 11/10/2014 6:41 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> I see this work in various scopes of increasing size.
>
> scope 1: documenting the metrics and putting them in a legal framework
> scope 2: ensuring proper community over sight and modification of the
> metrics.
> scope 3: ensuring proper over sight of the IANA function (removal of
> contract)
> scope 4: ensuring proper over sight of ARIN
> scope 5: ensuring proper over sight of the ICANN Board wrt
> ratification of Global Policy Proposals
> scope 6: ensuring proper over sight of ICANN
>
> Scopes 1, 2 and 3 are required to transition the NTIA oversight.
>
> To some extent 4 may be required if 2 and 3 depend on ARIN staff, or
> ARIN board, or ARIN governance documentation, and not directly the
> membership.
>
> Scopes 5 and 6 are not directly impacted by the transition of NTIA
> oversight of the IANA function wrt number resources, but do relate to
> the larger question of removal of the NTIA over sight of IACNN and the
> ability of NTIA to pull the plug if things go wrong.
>
> I would argue we should do the following:
> 1. quickly document the SLAs
> 2. propose a straw-man for who holds the legal contract including or
> referencing the SLAs
> 3. document a process for modifying the SLA, transparently reporting
> of the SLA performance to the community
> 4. propose a straw-man for declaring (non-)compliance, and the actions
> taking up to and including removal of the contract
> 5. get community consensus on the straw-man for how holds the legal
> contract, and what is the process for declaring (non-)compliance and
> taking action.
>
> Complete this by the end of the month.  
>
> Then while the CRIP team is working on unifying the outputs of the
> communities, we should focus in on the increasing scope.
>
> If the ARIN membership does not own the process for modifying the
> SLAs, judging (non-)compliance, and taking action, then is there the
> proper community oversight of those that do? (This needs to be
> complete prior to the go/no-go decision of moving forward with the
> transition)
>
> Then beyond that, does the ARIN membership have the proper oversight
> of ARIN in general, such as changes to the ARIN mission statement,
> changes to the ARIN bylaws, and recall of board members, etc.
>
> Then beyond that, does the RIR membership have the proper oversight of
> the ICANN Board wrt the ratification of Global Policy.  Are we
> comfortable with the ability of the IACNN Board refusing to ratify a
> Global Policy and going to arbitration?  Are we comfortable going to
> arbitration for every new Global Policy Proposal?  Should there be
> some other ICANN Board oversight? (we need to be comfortable with
> these answers prior to the go/no-go decision of moving forward with
> the transition)
>
> Then if we solve all those issues, we can look more generally into the
> oversight of ICANN.
>
Jason,

A good summary of what work is likely before us in the coming year(s). 
A more immediate question might be what needs to be done in the next
couple of weeks before the CRISP group starts its formal work? 

Or to the members of the CRISP group from this region, what discussion
do you still think needs to happen in this region before the global work
starts?

Andrew


From woody at pch.net  Wed Nov 12 17:55:42 2014
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 14:55:42 -0800
Subject: [Iana-transition] RIPE slide deck on the matter.
Message-ID: <CE9F0E15-EC38-41B6-A5CC-F2D3213CFBF9@pch.net>

Worth reading:

https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/139-IANA-CoopWG-RIPE69.pdf

Thanks, Michael, for pointing out that link.  Note that RIPE have selected Nurani Nimpuno (NetNod, previously APNIC), Andrei Robachevsky (ISOC, previously RIPE), and Paul Rendek (RIPE) as their CRISP team members.

Jason, David, how well do you think RIPE?s slides 12-13 match what you?re looking for?

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141112/0f373b48/attachment.sig>

From woody at pch.net  Wed Nov 12 18:16:43 2014
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 15:16:43 -0800
Subject: [Iana-transition] [IANA-TRANSITION] LANIC UPDATE,
	IDEAS FOR NEW OVERSIGHT BOARD (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <CE9F0E15-EC38-41B6-A5CC-F2D3213CFBF9@pch.net>
References: <CE9F0E15-EC38-41B6-A5CC-F2D3213CFBF9@pch.net>
Message-ID: <9BF6F78F-5492-42C3-8704-F3065EA8A718@pch.net>

Jason wrote:
> I understand the "real" SLAs are in this doc <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/icann-proposal>.


No luck there.  The relevant text to SLAs is in Part 1, of the four-part document, and says (four snippets excerpted):

> The relationship between ICANN and the IETF is and will continue to be governed by a formal MoU from June 2000, published as RFC 2860. It is supplemented with an ICANN-IETF MoU Supplemental Agreement and includes a Service Level Agreement (SLA),
> 
> ICANN will continue to meet the service level agreements documented in the MoU with the IETF
> 
> ICANN entered into a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) in January 2007
> 
> ICANN entered into an Exchange of Letters with the Number Resource Organization (NRO) in December 2007. The NRO performs the role of the 
> ICANN Address Supporting Organizatin (ASO). ICANN?s letter to the NRO included an invitation to the NRO to work with ICANN to document service levels associated with Internet Number Resource (INR) allocation processes.

There are unfortunately a bunch of ICANN-IETF MoU Supplemental Agreements.  These ones from 2011-2014 include an SLA for the protocol parameter registries:

    https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ietf-iana-agreement-2011-12sep11-en.pdf
    https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2013-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf
    http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf

?and this document explains the process by which this annual agreement is arrived at:

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02

Any other pointers would be appreciated, and I?ll chase them down.

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141112/4637f7d5/attachment.sig>

From jschiller at google.com  Wed Nov 12 19:29:57 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 19:29:57 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] RIPE slide deck on the matter.
In-Reply-To: <CE9F0E15-EC38-41B6-A5CC-F2D3213CFBF9@pch.net>
References: <CE9F0E15-EC38-41B6-A5CC-F2D3213CFBF9@pch.net>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2VE9ZKteLgsUon10b6ofao1Znd36p=-JnZZgVr2ZtruJw@mail.gmail.com>

Bill,

Over all I thought the presentation was good, and the community response
also good.

I think it is still a bit high level.

I agree with slides 12 - 13, but I think the focus of those slides is
melding each of the RIR's texts into a common text, and we are missing the
part about our region putting forward our text.

In the very short term, say the rest of this month, we need to craft the
ARIN region text.  There are a few decisions that have to be made, and I
think the bottom-up, inclusive, transparent process should allow the
community to weigh in and demonstrate the amount of consensus there is for
support of the proposal, or specific aspects or questions.

I think there are things that are fairly mechanical and non-controversial,
like, get the staff to pull out all the relevant SLAs from  the contract
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf>
between
the NTIA and ICANN for the IANA functions, the SLAs doc
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/icann-proposal>, the result
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-iana-kpis-22apr13-en.pdf>
of the consultation process
<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-kpis-2012-11-20-en> on
performance standards that occurred from Nov 20, 2012 through Feb 28, 2013,
and the metrics ICANN reports on <https://www.iana.org/performance/metrics>
in section c293.  Publish that in a doc.  Report on progress, and make
ongoing work on this doc available to the community.

I think after staff completes that they should shift to:
- a description of the communities use of the IANA function WRT Internet
Number resources
- what is the current global policy
- where does global policy come from (what is the process)
- how the GDPD is transparent, open, bottom-up and inclusive
- What oversight mechanisms there are for global policy making
- What over sight mechanisms are there for the operation of the IANA
function

I also think we as a community can agree we are only talking about Internet
Number resources here.
(I.e. which check box to tick in the RFP for 0. Proposal Type.)

1. The first question to answer is what legal vehicle should we use, an
MoU, a services contract, something else?  I'm not sure I care, but I think
it should be discussed.  I think legal should provide their assessment of
concerns, and the community bring up any points, and consensus judged
regarding one approach over another.  Then Legal and the CRISP team go off
and write one and present it back to the community.

2. The second question is who holds the legal document.  Is it between the
5 RIRs and ICANN, the unincorporated NRO and ICANN, the incorporated NRO
and ICANN, the unincorporated MONC and ICANN, the incorporated MONC and
ICANN, someone else?
I'm not sure I care, but I think it should be discussed, and consensus
judged regarding one approach over another.

3. The third question is who can break the legal contract and pull back the
IANA function wrt Internet Numbers, what is the process, and what
input/oversight (directly or indirectly) does the membership have over it?

I think this will be difficult, and a strawman in some slides might be good
to start the conversation moving in the right direction.  I haven't thought
about it much, but it seems to me either 1. the community has a direct roll
through some well defined process or 2. the RIRs as customers of the IANA
function own this process and hold the operators of the IANA function
accountable to deliver service, and the membership has input into this
indirectly as customers of the RIRs and holding them accountable to deliver
service.
(this to some extent may depend on how can pull back the IANA function, and
what the membership input is)  In the indirect case what mechanisms does
the membership have to turn the screws on the RIRs to get them to turn the
screws on the operator of the IANA function?

4. The fourth question is if the current SLAs are good?  If not what is
the process to change them now? What is the process to change them in the
future? And what level of input / oversight does the membership have? (this
last question may depend in part on the answer to question 3 wrt direct /
indirect membership involvement.

5. Does the current level of reporting of IANA operations line up with the
SLAs?  If not what additional reporting would we like to see?  I also think
there should be an active monthly review of the reports.  We should define
who does this.  (that may in part depend on the answer to question 3 wrt
direct / indirect membership involvement.)  They should be responsible for
reporting to the community.  What is the process to declare
(non-)compliance, and what level of oversight does the membership have over
this? (again, that may in part depend on the answer to question 3).

We should also consider what is coming out of the other regions:
Do we like / dis-like / ambivalent to the idea on MONC?
Personally, I'm not sure what this buys us other than another set of
people.  I think these people could easily sit inside the NRO say the
Number Resource Oversight Committee (NRO OC).  Creating another
organization means another set of charting, operating procedures, answering
questions of oversight of that body.

I think working in existing bodies and leveraging current practices is
better.  I think to that extent that new bodies resemble existing ones and
new processes mirror existing ones we have greater likelihood of success.

Do we support an "Affirmation of Multistakeholder Model as defined as an
"open, transparent, bottom up, inclusive process"?
This doesn't sound bad to me.  Maybe it helps tick a box on the ICG RFP?

I think that gets us to an ARIN community document(s) hopefully in enought
time for CRISP to do some writing, prior to Jan 15.

I would then expect the CRISP team to take the common elements and put them
into a shared document, and point out the areas of disagreement (and any
insight if the positions of disagreeing communities are mutually exclusive
and unlikely to be resolved).  This should be shared with the communities.

If there is time before 01/15, we should try to get consensus on some of
these.  If not, we should send this document to the ICG, and have the
communities continue to work on a consensus position, and advise the ICG of
on going developments.


I think we should then shift gears to the accountability matrix, and over
sight of each of the RIRs individually within their own memberships.  Does
another RIR have an oversight mechanism that we lack?  Is the
oversight sufficient?

We should also consider ICANN Board accountability wrt Global policy
ratification.  Is going to arbitration sufficient?  Or do we need more
oversight wrt Global policy ratification?

We should probably have that all sorted before the contract with NTIA is up.

And if we have time, we can look at oversight of ICANN as a whole.  This
work can continue past the NTIA contract, but I think we have the greatest
chance to positively impact this while the spotlight is shining (before the
NTIA contract expires), and we should not squander this opportunity.


Did I answer your question?  If not please re-ask it.

Thanks for your support on the CRISP team,

__Jason


On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:

> Worth reading:
>
> https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/139-IANA-CoopWG-RIPE69.pdf
>
> Thanks, Michael, for pointing out that link.  Note that RIPE have selected
> Nurani Nimpuno (NetNod, previously APNIC), Andrei Robachevsky (ISOC,
> previously RIPE), and Paul Rendek (RIPE) as their CRISP team members.
>
> Jason, David, how well do you think RIPE's slides 12-13 match what you're
> looking for?
>
>                                 -Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141112/5b1c8288/attachment.html>

From jschiller at google.com  Wed Nov 12 19:52:01 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 19:52:01 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] [IANA-TRANSITION] LANIC UPDATE,
 IDEAS FOR NEW OVERSIGHT BOARD (MONC)
In-Reply-To: <9BF6F78F-5492-42C3-8704-F3065EA8A718@pch.net>
References: <CE9F0E15-EC38-41B6-A5CC-F2D3213CFBF9@pch.net>
	<9BF6F78F-5492-42C3-8704-F3065EA8A718@pch.net>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2Vo_G59g+Gf=RZKGUXJ1ARA3K0TKx2bA+rqVGEdPV9Y4w@mail.gmail.com>

I also found this:

After further investigation, seems I am missing part of where the SLAs
are...

There was a consultation process on performance standards that occurred
from Nov 20, 2012 through Feb 28, 2013.
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/iana-kpis-2012-11-20-en

The result of that consultation concluded that the IANA should provide a
monthly report on key performance indicators, as well as data about request
made and processed, and implementation of new global policy.
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-iana-kpis-22apr13-en.pdf

The archive of those reports can be found here:
https://www.iana.org/performance/metrics
You will want section c293 for the number resources part (append #c293 to
any of the URLs in the archive to jump straight there)

There was also some discussion about an unpublished "working" document that
the IANA operators and RIRs traded back and forth.  I'm not sure if that
has any more detailed metrics then the previous documents, or the consultation
process on performance standards, its results, and monthly reports that are
currently available.  If so, maybe John Curran, Leo Vegoda, Elise Gerich,
or her predecessor can dig that up and would be willing to share it with
the CRISP team as another input?

If not, then I would point the community to the monthly metrics and ask if
what they find in c293
<https://www.iana.org/performance/metrics/20140930#c293> sufficient?  And
if not what additional metrics / data would they like to see?

___Jason

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:

> Jason wrote:
> > I understand the "real" SLAs are in this doc <
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/icann-proposal>.
>
>
> No luck there.  The relevant text to SLAs is in Part 1, of the four-part
> document, and says (four snippets excerpted):
>
> > The relationship between ICANN and the IETF is and will continue to be
> governed by a formal MoU from June 2000, published as RFC 2860. It is
> supplemented with an ICANN-IETF MoU Supplemental Agreement and includes a
> Service Level Agreement (SLA),
> >
> > ICANN will continue to meet the service level agreements documented in
> the MoU with the IETF
> >
> > ICANN entered into a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the IETF
> Administrative Support Activity (IASA) in January 2007
> >
> > ICANN entered into an Exchange of Letters with the Number Resource
> Organization (NRO) in December 2007. The NRO performs the role of the
> > ICANN Address Supporting Organizatin (ASO). ICANN's letter to the NRO
> included an invitation to the NRO to work with ICANN to document service
> levels associated with Internet Number Resource (INR) allocation processes.
>
> There are unfortunately a bunch of ICANN-IETF MoU Supplemental
> Agreements.  These ones from 2011-2014 include an SLA for the protocol
> parameter registries:
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ietf-iana-agreement-2011-12sep11-en.pdf
>
> https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2013-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf
>
> http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf
>
> ...and this document explains the process by which this annual agreement is
> arrived at:
>
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02
>
> Any other pointers would be appreciated, and I'll chase them down.
>
>                                 -Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141112/100db8bf/attachment.html>

From farmer at umn.edu  Wed Nov 12 20:18:27 2014
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 19:18:27 -0600
Subject: [Iana-transition] RIPE slide deck on the matter.
In-Reply-To: <CE9F0E15-EC38-41B6-A5CC-F2D3213CFBF9@pch.net>
References: <CE9F0E15-EC38-41B6-A5CC-F2D3213CFBF9@pch.net>
Message-ID: <546406E3.1020004@umn.edu>

On 11/12/14, 16:55 , Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Worth reading:
>
> https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/139-IANA-CoopWG-RIPE69.pdf
>
> Thanks, Michael, for pointing out that link.  Note that RIPE have selected Nurani Nimpuno (NetNod, previously APNIC), Andrei Robachevsky (ISOC, previously RIPE), and Paul Rendek (RIPE) as their CRISP team members.
>
> Jason, David, how well do you think RIPE?s slides 12-13 match what you?re looking for?

Bill,

I don't think I'm the David you were asking, but I'll comment any way. :)

The only thing I would add to slides 12-14 is a framework for future 
changes, maybe based on the current CRISP/ICG Model.  The point being on 
fairly short notice we had to spin up a process to put together a 
proposal for NTIA Oversight Transition.  It would be rather naive to 
think there won't be additional future change of comparable scope that 
would necessitate similar community actions, maybe in another 5 or 10 
years, who knows.

I won't even speculate on what might necessitate or drive such a change, 
but having an agreed upon framework and knowing who is empowered to 
trigger it, would seem like prudent precautions.  If such a framework 
had already existed many months may have been eliminated from the 
current process.  I'm calling for a framework, because I would not want 
to tie our own future hands, but prepare our future selves with tools, 
leaving the choice of the appropriate tool to when the need arises.

Thanks.

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================


From jschiller at google.com  Thu Nov 13 06:37:09 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 06:37:09 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] Scope of work
In-Reply-To: <54628EAC.4050702@quark.net>
References: <CAC4yj2Uund54-x7yWvK7udq87bmqSEwyiDuGh3AMiEMb9fPT+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54628EAC.4050702@quark.net>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2XexWGjhc1x1-tj3vOpM_qSpVxQ2iOQSX-GwQYGdc_s=Q@mail.gmail.com>

I think I answered this on Bill's thread"RIPE slide deck on the matter."

In short the ARIN community needs to start shaping some actual text.

I have tried to separate the non-controversial stuff out, like documenting
the current state of things:
- current SLAs
- Internet Number related IANA services our community uses
- What is the current Global Policy
- Where does Global Policy come from
- How the GDPD is transparent, open, bottom-up and inclusive
- What are the oversight mechanisms for global policy making
- What are the over sight mechanisms for the operation of the IANA function
- and that the community agrees we are commenting in Internet Number
Resources

I think CRISP, and especially that RIR staff, can go off and put together
text on this and as it becomes available share it with the community.  (I
expect the community will mostly just nod to this).

I think the first two questions, 1. What type of legal document, and 2.
between whom? Are fairly straight forward.  I hope legal council can
provide some advice, and after a short community discussion, the ARIN CRISP
team should be able to tell where this community stands (and share with us
where other communities stand in reference to this question).  Are all
types of legal documents acceptable, in which case we move towards where
other communities are headed? Is one type preferred over another, but a
short list of the ones that are acceptable?  Is the
community ambivalent and happy to defer to council?

I'd say maybe a week discussion after we have the advice of council.  Once
we have an answer to question 1, council and CRISP can go off and write the
document and share it with the community.  Once we have an answer to
question 2, we can pop the names in.

3. How pulling back the IANA function should work post NTIA transition, and
what membership oversight there is for it, is completely new ground.  I'd
argue for CRISP to provide some slides as a starting point for discussion.
Maybe slides in a weeks time, and assess where the discussion is 10 days
after that?

4,5. is SLA stuff.  Once we have the current SLAs, and the current list of
IANA services the community uses, we can try to figure out if the SLAs
are sufficient, if not modify them.  This is maybe a week of discussion,
then the CRIPS team can modify the consolidated SLA document to include
feedback.

We also need to determine the future process for changing the SLAs, and how
to provide oversight of the quality of service, how to declare
(non-)compliance , and what is the membership oversight.  We can try and
address these concerns once we pin down the SLAs, maybe 2 weeks?

So timelines...

If we want the ARIN output by 12/01 so CRISP have 45 days to assemble a
single document...

Current SLAs are published in a single doc by 11/17
Council publishes a list of legal documents by 11/17 comparing types of
legal docs
  - contract for IANA services referencing an SLA
  - MoU
  - Legally binding SLA document
  - Something else?
One week discussion about which legal doc and between whom 11/17 - 11/23
One week discussion modifications to current SLA and IANA function
reporting 11/17 - 11/23
CRISP team to write Legal Agreement 11/24 - 12/14
Discussion of  11/24 - 12/07
  - future SLA modification process
  - oversight of IANA performance
  - level of membership oversight
CRISP team to create SLA document  12/08 - 12/14
  - IANA SLA development process
  - IANA performance oversight
  - declaration on IANA (non-)compliance
  - level of membership oversight
Community to review and reiterate Legal and SLA documents when available
through 12/14
CRISP produce unified doc 12/14 - 01/15/2015
Community to review unified documents when available through 01/11/2015
  - Community to find consensus position on issues through 01/11/2015
CRISP collect final modifications 01/11/2015 - 01/15/2015
CRISP to provide final iteration to RIR communities and CSG 01/15/2015

Community to continue to find consensus position on issues
for unified draft 01/15/2015 - 09/2015
CRISP team to inform CSG of significant changes ongoing through 09/2015

Community to shift focus to ARIN governance as global consensus discussion
winds down through 09/2015

Community to shift focus to IANA Board oversight wrt ratification of Global
Policy as ARIN governance discussion winds down through 09/2015

Community to shift focus to IANA oversight as IANA Board oversight
discussion winds down through 09/2015

 Community to continue focus to IANA oversight - on going

__Jason




On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:

> On 11/10/2014 6:41 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> > I see this work in various scopes of increasing size.
> >
> > scope 1: documenting the metrics and putting them in a legal framework
> > scope 2: ensuring proper community over sight and modification of the
> > metrics.
> > scope 3: ensuring proper over sight of the IANA function (removal of
> > contract)
> > scope 4: ensuring proper over sight of ARIN
> > scope 5: ensuring proper over sight of the ICANN Board wrt
> > ratification of Global Policy Proposals
> > scope 6: ensuring proper over sight of ICANN
> >
> > Scopes 1, 2 and 3 are required to transition the NTIA oversight.
> >
> > To some extent 4 may be required if 2 and 3 depend on ARIN staff, or
> > ARIN board, or ARIN governance documentation, and not directly the
> > membership.
> >
> > Scopes 5 and 6 are not directly impacted by the transition of NTIA
> > oversight of the IANA function wrt number resources, but do relate to
> > the larger question of removal of the NTIA over sight of IACNN and the
> > ability of NTIA to pull the plug if things go wrong.
> >
> > I would argue we should do the following:
> > 1. quickly document the SLAs
> > 2. propose a straw-man for who holds the legal contract including or
> > referencing the SLAs
> > 3. document a process for modifying the SLA, transparently reporting
> > of the SLA performance to the community
> > 4. propose a straw-man for declaring (non-)compliance, and the actions
> > taking up to and including removal of the contract
> > 5. get community consensus on the straw-man for how holds the legal
> > contract, and what is the process for declaring (non-)compliance and
> > taking action.
> >
> > Complete this by the end of the month.
> >
> > Then while the CRIP team is working on unifying the outputs of the
> > communities, we should focus in on the increasing scope.
> >
> > If the ARIN membership does not own the process for modifying the
> > SLAs, judging (non-)compliance, and taking action, then is there the
> > proper community oversight of those that do? (This needs to be
> > complete prior to the go/no-go decision of moving forward with the
> > transition)
> >
> > Then beyond that, does the ARIN membership have the proper oversight
> > of ARIN in general, such as changes to the ARIN mission statement,
> > changes to the ARIN bylaws, and recall of board members, etc.
> >
> > Then beyond that, does the RIR membership have the proper oversight of
> > the ICANN Board wrt the ratification of Global Policy.  Are we
> > comfortable with the ability of the IACNN Board refusing to ratify a
> > Global Policy and going to arbitration?  Are we comfortable going to
> > arbitration for every new Global Policy Proposal?  Should there be
> > some other ICANN Board oversight? (we need to be comfortable with
> > these answers prior to the go/no-go decision of moving forward with
> > the transition)
> >
> > Then if we solve all those issues, we can look more generally into the
> > oversight of ICANN.
> >
> Jason,
>
> A good summary of what work is likely before us in the coming year(s).
> A more immediate question might be what needs to be done in the next
> couple of weeks before the CRISP group starts its formal work?
>
> Or to the members of the CRISP group from this region, what discussion
> do you still think needs to happen in this region before the global work
> starts?
>
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141113/a540baaf/attachment.html>

From john.sweeting at twcable.com  Thu Nov 13 16:02:49 2014
From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 16:02:49 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] Scope of work
In-Reply-To: <CAC4yj2XexWGjhc1x1-tj3vOpM_qSpVxQ2iOQSX-GwQYGdc_s=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC4yj2Uund54-x7yWvK7udq87bmqSEwyiDuGh3AMiEMb9fPT+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54628EAC.4050702@quark.net>
	<CAC4yj2XexWGjhc1x1-tj3vOpM_qSpVxQ2iOQSX-GwQYGdc_s=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D08A8355.42C9E%john.sweeting@twcable.com>

Jason,


On 11/13/14, 6:37 AM, "Jason Schiller" <jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:

I think I answered this on Bill's thread"RIPE slide deck on the matter."

In short the ARIN community needs to start shaping some actual text.

I have tried to separate the non-controversial stuff out, like documenting the current state of things:
- current SLAs
- Internet Number related IANA services our community uses
- What is the current Global Policy
- Where does Global Policy come from
- How the GDPD is transparent, open, bottom-up and inclusive
- What are the oversight mechanisms for global policy making
- What are the over sight mechanisms for the operation of the IANA function
- and that the community agrees we are commenting in Internet Number Resources

I think CRISP, and especially that RIR staff, can go off and put together text on this and as it becomes available share it with the community.  (I expect the community will mostly just nod to this).

We will work with Michael to get this done


I think the first two questions, 1. What type of legal document, and 2. between whom? Are fairly straight forward.  I hope legal council can provide some advice, and after a short community discussion, the ARIN CRISP team should be able to tell where this community stands (and share with us where other communities stand in reference to this question).

Again, we?ll work with Michael on this as well

Are all types of legal documents acceptable, in which case we move towards where other communities are headed? Is one type preferred over another, but a short list of the ones that are acceptable?  Is the community ambivalent and happy to defer to council?

I'd say maybe a week discussion after we have the advice of council.  Once we have an answer to question 1, council and CRISP can go off and write the document and share it with the community.  Once we have an answer to question 2, we can pop the names in.

3. How pulling back the IANA function should work post NTIA transition, and what membership oversight there is for it, is completely new ground.  I'd argue for CRISP to provide some slides as a starting point for discussion. Maybe slides in a weeks time, and assess where the discussion is 10 days after that?

Not sure what you mean by ?pulling back? and not sure what membership you are talking about? Or do you just mean ?community oversight? ? Please elaborate


4,5. is SLA stuff.  Once we have the current SLAs, and the current list of IANA services the community uses, we can try to figure out if the SLAs are sufficient, if not modify them.  This is maybe a week of discussion, then the CRIPS team can modify the consolidated SLA document to include feedback.

Agree, this should not be that difficult


We also need to determine the future process for changing the SLAs, and how to provide oversight of the quality of service, how to declare (non-)compliance , and what is the membership oversight.  We can try and address these concerns once we pin down the SLAs, maybe 2 weeks?

It is important to include this. As to the timeline below we?ll get a CRISP team call together to discuss and modify if needed. Thanks for taking the time to lay this out, it is very useful.

-john


So timelines...

If we want the ARIN output by 12/01 so CRISP have 45 days to assemble a single document...

Current SLAs are published in a single doc by 11/17
Council publishes a list of legal documents by 11/17 comparing types of legal docs
  - contract for IANA services referencing an SLA
  - MoU
  - Legally binding SLA document
  - Something else?
One week discussion about which legal doc and between whom 11/17 - 11/23
One week discussion modifications to current SLA and IANA function reporting 11/17 - 11/23
CRISP team to write Legal Agreement 11/24 - 12/14
Discussion of  11/24 - 12/07
  - future SLA modification process
  - oversight of IANA performance
  - level of membership oversight
CRISP team to create SLA document  12/08 - 12/14
  - IANA SLA development process
  - IANA performance oversight
  - declaration on IANA (non-)compliance
  - level of membership oversight
Community to review and reiterate Legal and SLA documents when available through 12/14
CRISP produce unified doc 12/14 - 01/15/2015
Community to review unified documents when available through 01/11/2015
  - Community to find consensus position on issues through 01/11/2015
CRISP collect final modifications 01/11/2015 - 01/15/2015
CRISP to provide final iteration to RIR communities and CSG 01/15/2015

Community to continue to find consensus position on issues for unified draft 01/15/2015 - 09/2015
CRISP team to inform CSG of significant changes ongoing through 09/2015

Community to shift focus to ARIN governance as global consensus discussion winds down through 09/2015

Community to shift focus to IANA Board oversight wrt ratification of Global Policy as ARIN governance discussion winds down through 09/2015

Community to shift focus to IANA oversight as IANA Board oversight discussion winds down through 09/2015

 Community to continue focus to IANA oversight - on going

__Jason




On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net<mailto:andrew.dul at quark.net>> wrote:
On 11/10/2014 6:41 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> I see this work in various scopes of increasing size.
>
> scope 1: documenting the metrics and putting them in a legal framework
> scope 2: ensuring proper community over sight and modification of the
> metrics.
> scope 3: ensuring proper over sight of the IANA function (removal of
> contract)
> scope 4: ensuring proper over sight of ARIN
> scope 5: ensuring proper over sight of the ICANN Board wrt
> ratification of Global Policy Proposals
> scope 6: ensuring proper over sight of ICANN
>
> Scopes 1, 2 and 3 are required to transition the NTIA oversight.
>
> To some extent 4 may be required if 2 and 3 depend on ARIN staff, or
> ARIN board, or ARIN governance documentation, and not directly the
> membership.
>
> Scopes 5 and 6 are not directly impacted by the transition of NTIA
> oversight of the IANA function wrt number resources, but do relate to
> the larger question of removal of the NTIA over sight of IACNN and the
> ability of NTIA to pull the plug if things go wrong.
>
> I would argue we should do the following:
> 1. quickly document the SLAs
> 2. propose a straw-man for who holds the legal contract including or
> referencing the SLAs
> 3. document a process for modifying the SLA, transparently reporting
> of the SLA performance to the community
> 4. propose a straw-man for declaring (non-)compliance, and the actions
> taking up to and including removal of the contract
> 5. get community consensus on the straw-man for how holds the legal
> contract, and what is the process for declaring (non-)compliance and
> taking action.
>
> Complete this by the end of the month.
>
> Then while the CRIP team is working on unifying the outputs of the
> communities, we should focus in on the increasing scope.
>
> If the ARIN membership does not own the process for modifying the
> SLAs, judging (non-)compliance, and taking action, then is there the
> proper community oversight of those that do? (This needs to be
> complete prior to the go/no-go decision of moving forward with the
> transition)
>
> Then beyond that, does the ARIN membership have the proper oversight
> of ARIN in general, such as changes to the ARIN mission statement,
> changes to the ARIN bylaws, and recall of board members, etc.
>
> Then beyond that, does the RIR membership have the proper oversight of
> the ICANN Board wrt the ratification of Global Policy.  Are we
> comfortable with the ability of the IACNN Board refusing to ratify a
> Global Policy and going to arbitration?  Are we comfortable going to
> arbitration for every new Global Policy Proposal?  Should there be
> some other ICANN Board oversight? (we need to be comfortable with
> these answers prior to the go/no-go decision of moving forward with
> the transition)
>
> Then if we solve all those issues, we can look more generally into the
> oversight of ICANN.
>
Jason,

A good summary of what work is likely before us in the coming year(s).
A more immediate question might be what needs to be done in the next
couple of weeks before the CRISP group starts its formal work?

Or to the members of the CRISP group from this region, what discussion
do you still think needs to happen in this region before the global work
starts?

Andrew
_______________________________________________
Iana-transition mailing list
Iana-transition at arin.net<mailto:Iana-transition at arin.net>
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition



--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006


________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141113/141c294e/attachment.html>

From jschiller at google.com  Thu Nov 13 17:14:27 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:14:27 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] Scope of work
In-Reply-To: <D08A8355.42C9E%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
References: <CAC4yj2Uund54-x7yWvK7udq87bmqSEwyiDuGh3AMiEMb9fPT+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54628EAC.4050702@quark.net>
	<CAC4yj2XexWGjhc1x1-tj3vOpM_qSpVxQ2iOQSX-GwQYGdc_s=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<D08A8355.42C9E%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2Xc-kbs1wgsHLAAzkvuP2PR9pwaoPkG9ZvWSHJro94gaw@mail.gmail.com>

John,

You asked me to elaborate on what I meant by "pulling back the IANA
function" and "membership"

So right now NTIA has some ability to threaten to break, or actually break
the contract for the IANA function, and award that to another
organization.  I assume the decision to (threaten to) break the contract
for the IANA service (or break the MoU or whatever legal document we have)
would rest with someone or some body using some process.  We need to sort
out what body or person has that power, what is the process followed, and
to what extend does the ARIN membership (and the memberships of the other
RIRs) have input and or oversight into that process.

Generally yes I mean "community" but when it comes to governance issues we
have a history of using ARIN membership not ARIN community.  As such I said
membership to vaguely mean the ARIN membership (particular to this region's
input) and the input of the members of the other 4 regions.

Does that clarify it?

Thanks for your service on the CRISP team,

__Jason

3. How pulling back the IANA function should work post NTIA transition, and
what membership oversight there is for it, is completely new ground.  I'd
argue for CRISP to provide some slides as a starting point for discussion.
Maybe slides in a weeks time, and assess where the discussion is 10 days
after that?


Not sure what you mean by "pulling back" and not sure what membership you
are talking about? Or do you just mean "community oversight" ? Please
elaborate


On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Sweeting, John <john.sweeting at twcable.com>
wrote:

>  Jason,
>
>
>   On 11/13/14, 6:37 AM, "Jason Schiller" <jschiller at google.com> wrote:
>
>   I think I answered this on Bill's thread"RIPE slide deck on the
> matter."
>
>  In short the ARIN community needs to start shaping some actual text.
>
>  I have tried to separate the non-controversial stuff out, like
> documenting the current state of things:
> - current SLAs
> - Internet Number related IANA services our community uses
>
>    - What is the current Global Policy
> - Where does Global Policy come from
> - How the GDPD is transparent, open, bottom-up and inclusive
> - What are the oversight mechanisms for global policy making
> - What are the over sight mechanisms for the operation of the IANA function
> - and that the community agrees we are commenting in Internet Number
> Resources
>
>  I think CRISP, and especially that RIR staff, can go off and put
> together text on this and as it becomes available share it with the
> community.  (I expect the community will mostly just nod to this).
>
>
>  We will work with Michael to get this done
>
>
>  I think the first two questions, 1. What type of legal document, and 2.
> between whom? Are fairly straight forward.  I hope legal council can
> provide some advice, and after a short community discussion, the ARIN CRISP
> team should be able to tell where this community stands (and share with us
> where other communities stand in reference to this question).
>
>
>  Again, we'll work with Michael on this as well
>
>    Are all types of legal documents acceptable, in which case we move
> towards where other communities are headed? Is one type preferred over
> another, but a short list of the ones that are acceptable?  Is the
> community ambivalent and happy to defer to council?
>
>  I'd say maybe a week discussion after we have the advice of council.
> Once we have an answer to question 1, council and CRISP can go off and
> write the document and share it with the community.  Once we have an answer
> to question 2, we can pop the names in.
>
>  3. How pulling back the IANA function should work post NTIA transition,
> and what membership oversight there is for it, is completely new ground.
> I'd argue for CRISP to provide some slides as a starting point for
> discussion. Maybe slides in a weeks time, and assess where the discussion
> is 10 days after that?
>
>
>  Not sure what you mean by "pulling back" and not sure what membership
> you are talking about? Or do you just mean "community oversight" ? Please
> elaborate
>
>
>  4,5. is SLA stuff.  Once we have the current SLAs, and the current list
> of IANA services the community uses, we can try to figure out if the SLAs
> are sufficient, if not modify them.  This is maybe a week of discussion,
> then the CRIPS team can modify the consolidated SLA document to include
> feedback.
>
>
>  Agree, this should not be that difficult
>
>
>  We also need to determine the future process for changing the SLAs, and
> how to provide oversight of the quality of service, how to declare
> (non-)compliance , and what is the membership oversight.  We can try and
> address these concerns once we pin down the SLAs, maybe 2 weeks?
>
>
>  It is important to include this. As to the timeline below we'll get a
> CRISP team call together to discuss and modify if needed. Thanks for taking
> the time to lay this out, it is very useful.
>
>  -john
>
>
>  So timelines...
>
>  If we want the ARIN output by 12/01 so CRISP have 45 days to assemble a
> single document...
>
>  Current SLAs are published in a single doc by 11/17
> Council publishes a list of legal documents by 11/17 comparing types of
> legal docs
>   - contract for IANA services referencing an SLA
>   - MoU
>   - Legally binding SLA document
>   - Something else?
> One week discussion about which legal doc and between whom 11/17 - 11/23
>  One week discussion modifications to current SLA and IANA function
> reporting 11/17 - 11/23
>  CRISP team to write Legal Agreement 11/24 - 12/14
> Discussion of  11/24 - 12/07
>   - future SLA modification process
>   - oversight of IANA performance
>   - level of membership oversight
> CRISP team to create SLA document  12/08 - 12/14
>   - IANA SLA development process
>   - IANA performance oversight
>   - declaration on IANA (non-)compliance
>   - level of membership oversight
> Community to review and reiterate Legal and SLA documents when available
> through 12/14
> CRISP produce unified doc 12/14 - 01/15/2015
>  Community to review unified documents when available through 01/11/2015
>    - Community to find consensus position on issues through 01/11/2015
> CRISP collect final modifications 01/11/2015 - 01/15/2015
>  CRISP to provide final iteration to RIR communities and CSG 01/15/2015
>
>  Community to continue to find consensus position on issues
> for unified draft 01/15/2015 - 09/2015
> CRISP team to inform CSG of significant changes ongoing through 09/2015
>
>  Community to shift focus to ARIN governance as global consensus
> discussion winds down through 09/2015
>
>  Community to shift focus to IANA Board oversight wrt ratification of
> Global Policy as ARIN governance discussion winds down through 09/2015
>
>  Community to shift focus to IANA oversight as IANA Board oversight
> discussion winds down through 09/2015
>
>   Community to continue focus to IANA oversight - on going
>
>  __Jason
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>
>>  On 11/10/2014 6:41 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
>> > I see this work in various scopes of increasing size.
>> >
>> > scope 1: documenting the metrics and putting them in a legal framework
>> > scope 2: ensuring proper community over sight and modification of the
>> > metrics.
>> > scope 3: ensuring proper over sight of the IANA function (removal of
>> > contract)
>> > scope 4: ensuring proper over sight of ARIN
>> > scope 5: ensuring proper over sight of the ICANN Board wrt
>> > ratification of Global Policy Proposals
>> > scope 6: ensuring proper over sight of ICANN
>> >
>> > Scopes 1, 2 and 3 are required to transition the NTIA oversight.
>> >
>> > To some extent 4 may be required if 2 and 3 depend on ARIN staff, or
>> > ARIN board, or ARIN governance documentation, and not directly the
>> > membership.
>> >
>> > Scopes 5 and 6 are not directly impacted by the transition of NTIA
>> > oversight of the IANA function wrt number resources, but do relate to
>> > the larger question of removal of the NTIA over sight of IACNN and the
>> > ability of NTIA to pull the plug if things go wrong.
>> >
>> > I would argue we should do the following:
>> > 1. quickly document the SLAs
>> > 2. propose a straw-man for who holds the legal contract including or
>> > referencing the SLAs
>> > 3. document a process for modifying the SLA, transparently reporting
>> > of the SLA performance to the community
>> > 4. propose a straw-man for declaring (non-)compliance, and the actions
>> > taking up to and including removal of the contract
>> > 5. get community consensus on the straw-man for how holds the legal
>> > contract, and what is the process for declaring (non-)compliance and
>> > taking action.
>> >
>> > Complete this by the end of the month.
>> >
>> > Then while the CRIP team is working on unifying the outputs of the
>> > communities, we should focus in on the increasing scope.
>> >
>> > If the ARIN membership does not own the process for modifying the
>> > SLAs, judging (non-)compliance, and taking action, then is there the
>> > proper community oversight of those that do? (This needs to be
>> > complete prior to the go/no-go <https://goto.google.com/no-go>
>> decision of moving forward with the
>> > transition)
>> >
>> > Then beyond that, does the ARIN membership have the proper oversight
>> > of ARIN in general, such as changes to the ARIN mission statement,
>> > changes to the ARIN bylaws, and recall of board members, etc.
>> >
>> > Then beyond that, does the RIR membership have the proper oversight of
>> > the ICANN Board wrt the ratification of Global Policy.  Are we
>> > comfortable with the ability of the IACNN Board refusing to ratify a
>> > Global Policy and going to arbitration?  Are we comfortable going to
>> > arbitration for every new Global Policy Proposal?  Should there be
>> > some other ICANN Board oversight? (we need to be comfortable with
>> > these answers prior to the go/no-go <https://goto.google.com/no-go>
>> decision of moving forward with
>> > the transition)
>> >
>> > Then if we solve all those issues, we can look more generally into the
>> > oversight of ICANN.
>> >
>>  Jason,
>>
>> A good summary of what work is likely before us in the coming year(s).
>> A more immediate question might be what needs to be done in the next
>> couple of weeks before the CRISP group starts its formal work?
>>
>> Or to the members of the CRISP group from this region, what discussion
>> do you still think needs to happen in this region before the global work
>> starts?
>>
>> Andrew
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-transition mailing list
>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>
>
>
>
>  --
>  _______________________________________________________
>  Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
>
>
> ------------------------------
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
> copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
> are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that
> any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to
> the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and
> may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of
> this E-mail and any printout.
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141113/50ca1ddb/attachment.html>

From john.sweeting at twcable.com  Fri Nov 14 11:42:27 2014
From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:42:27 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] Scope of work
In-Reply-To: <CAC4yj2Xc-kbs1wgsHLAAzkvuP2PR9pwaoPkG9ZvWSHJro94gaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC4yj2Uund54-x7yWvK7udq87bmqSEwyiDuGh3AMiEMb9fPT+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54628EAC.4050702@quark.net>
	<CAC4yj2XexWGjhc1x1-tj3vOpM_qSpVxQ2iOQSX-GwQYGdc_s=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<D08A8355.42C9E%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<CAC4yj2Xc-kbs1wgsHLAAzkvuP2PR9pwaoPkG9ZvWSHJro94gaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D08B9B0F.42DC8%john.sweeting@twcable.com>

Yes, that helps. Thanks.

On 11/13/14, 5:14 PM, "Jason Schiller" <jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:

John,

You asked me to elaborate on what I meant by "pulling back the IANA function" and "membership"

So right now NTIA has some ability to threaten to break, or actually break the contract for the IANA function, and award that to another organization.  I assume the decision to (threaten to) break the contract for the IANA service (or break the MoU or whatever legal document we have) would rest with someone or some body using some process.  We need to sort out what body or person has that power, what is the process followed, and to what extend does the ARIN membership (and the memberships of the other RIRs) have input and or oversight into that process.

Generally yes I mean "community" but when it comes to governance issues we have a history of using ARIN membership not ARIN community.  As such I said membership to vaguely mean the ARIN membership (particular to this region's input) and the input of the members of the other 4 regions.

Does that clarify it?

Thanks for your service on the CRISP team,

__Jason

3. How pulling back the IANA function should work post NTIA transition, and what membership oversight there is for it, is completely new ground.  I'd argue for CRISP to provide some slides as a starting point for discussion. Maybe slides in a weeks time, and assess where the discussion is 10 days after that?

Not sure what you mean by ?pulling back? and not sure what membership you are talking about? Or do you just mean ?community oversight? ? Please elaborate


On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Sweeting, John <john.sweeting at twcable.com<mailto:john.sweeting at twcable.com>> wrote:
Jason,


On 11/13/14, 6:37 AM, "Jason Schiller" <jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:

I think I answered this on Bill's thread"RIPE slide deck on the matter."

In short the ARIN community needs to start shaping some actual text.

I have tried to separate the non-controversial stuff out, like documenting the current state of things:
- current SLAs
- Internet Number related IANA services our community uses
- What is the current Global Policy
- Where does Global Policy come from
- How the GDPD is transparent, open, bottom-up and inclusive
- What are the oversight mechanisms for global policy making
- What are the over sight mechanisms for the operation of the IANA function
- and that the community agrees we are commenting in Internet Number Resources

I think CRISP, and especially that RIR staff, can go off and put together text on this and as it becomes available share it with the community.  (I expect the community will mostly just nod to this).

We will work with Michael to get this done


I think the first two questions, 1. What type of legal document, and 2. between whom? Are fairly straight forward.  I hope legal council can provide some advice, and after a short community discussion, the ARIN CRISP team should be able to tell where this community stands (and share with us where other communities stand in reference to this question).

Again, we?ll work with Michael on this as well

Are all types of legal documents acceptable, in which case we move towards where other communities are headed? Is one type preferred over another, but a short list of the ones that are acceptable?  Is the community ambivalent and happy to defer to council?

I'd say maybe a week discussion after we have the advice of council.  Once we have an answer to question 1, council and CRISP can go off and write the document and share it with the community.  Once we have an answer to question 2, we can pop the names in.

3. How pulling back the IANA function should work post NTIA transition, and what membership oversight there is for it, is completely new ground.  I'd argue for CRISP to provide some slides as a starting point for discussion. Maybe slides in a weeks time, and assess where the discussion is 10 days after that?

Not sure what you mean by ?pulling back? and not sure what membership you are talking about? Or do you just mean ?community oversight? ? Please elaborate


4,5. is SLA stuff.  Once we have the current SLAs, and the current list of IANA services the community uses, we can try to figure out if the SLAs are sufficient, if not modify them.  This is maybe a week of discussion, then the CRIPS team can modify the consolidated SLA document to include feedback.

Agree, this should not be that difficult


We also need to determine the future process for changing the SLAs, and how to provide oversight of the quality of service, how to declare (non-)compliance , and what is the membership oversight.  We can try and address these concerns once we pin down the SLAs, maybe 2 weeks?

It is important to include this. As to the timeline below we?ll get a CRISP team call together to discuss and modify if needed. Thanks for taking the time to lay this out, it is very useful.

-john


So timelines...

If we want the ARIN output by 12/01 so CRISP have 45 days to assemble a single document...

Current SLAs are published in a single doc by 11/17
Council publishes a list of legal documents by 11/17 comparing types of legal docs
  - contract for IANA services referencing an SLA
  - MoU
  - Legally binding SLA document
  - Something else?
One week discussion about which legal doc and between whom 11/17 - 11/23
One week discussion modifications to current SLA and IANA function reporting 11/17 - 11/23
CRISP team to write Legal Agreement 11/24 - 12/14
Discussion of  11/24 - 12/07
  - future SLA modification process
  - oversight of IANA performance
  - level of membership oversight
CRISP team to create SLA document  12/08 - 12/14
  - IANA SLA development process
  - IANA performance oversight
  - declaration on IANA (non-)compliance
  - level of membership oversight
Community to review and reiterate Legal and SLA documents when available through 12/14
CRISP produce unified doc 12/14 - 01/15/2015
Community to review unified documents when available through 01/11/2015
  - Community to find consensus position on issues through 01/11/2015
CRISP collect final modifications 01/11/2015 - 01/15/2015
CRISP to provide final iteration to RIR communities and CSG 01/15/2015

Community to continue to find consensus position on issues for unified draft 01/15/2015 - 09/2015
CRISP team to inform CSG of significant changes ongoing through 09/2015

Community to shift focus to ARIN governance as global consensus discussion winds down through 09/2015

Community to shift focus to IANA Board oversight wrt ratification of Global Policy as ARIN governance discussion winds down through 09/2015

Community to shift focus to IANA oversight as IANA Board oversight discussion winds down through 09/2015

 Community to continue focus to IANA oversight - on going

__Jason




On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net<mailto:andrew.dul at quark.net>> wrote:
On 11/10/2014 6:41 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> I see this work in various scopes of increasing size.
>
> scope 1: documenting the metrics and putting them in a legal framework
> scope 2: ensuring proper community over sight and modification of the
> metrics.
> scope 3: ensuring proper over sight of the IANA function (removal of
> contract)
> scope 4: ensuring proper over sight of ARIN
> scope 5: ensuring proper over sight of the ICANN Board wrt
> ratification of Global Policy Proposals
> scope 6: ensuring proper over sight of ICANN
>
> Scopes 1, 2 and 3 are required to transition the NTIA oversight.
>
> To some extent 4 may be required if 2 and 3 depend on ARIN staff, or
> ARIN board, or ARIN governance documentation, and not directly the
> membership.
>
> Scopes 5 and 6 are not directly impacted by the transition of NTIA
> oversight of the IANA function wrt number resources, but do relate to
> the larger question of removal of the NTIA over sight of IACNN and the
> ability of NTIA to pull the plug if things go wrong.
>
> I would argue we should do the following:
> 1. quickly document the SLAs
> 2. propose a straw-man for who holds the legal contract including or
> referencing the SLAs
> 3. document a process for modifying the SLA, transparently reporting
> of the SLA performance to the community
> 4. propose a straw-man for declaring (non-)compliance, and the actions
> taking up to and including removal of the contract
> 5. get community consensus on the straw-man for how holds the legal
> contract, and what is the process for declaring (non-)compliance and
> taking action.
>
> Complete this by the end of the month.
>
> Then while the CRIP team is working on unifying the outputs of the
> communities, we should focus in on the increasing scope.
>
> If the ARIN membership does not own the process for modifying the
> SLAs, judging (non-)compliance, and taking action, then is there the
> proper community oversight of those that do? (This needs to be
> complete prior to the go/no-go<https://goto.google.com/no-go> decision of moving forward with the
> transition)
>
> Then beyond that, does the ARIN membership have the proper oversight
> of ARIN in general, such as changes to the ARIN mission statement,
> changes to the ARIN bylaws, and recall of board members, etc.
>
> Then beyond that, does the RIR membership have the proper oversight of
> the ICANN Board wrt the ratification of Global Policy.  Are we
> comfortable with the ability of the IACNN Board refusing to ratify a
> Global Policy and going to arbitration?  Are we comfortable going to
> arbitration for every new Global Policy Proposal?  Should there be
> some other ICANN Board oversight? (we need to be comfortable with
> these answers prior to the go/no-go<https://goto.google.com/no-go> decision of moving forward with
> the transition)
>
> Then if we solve all those issues, we can look more generally into the
> oversight of ICANN.
>
Jason,

A good summary of what work is likely before us in the coming year(s).
A more immediate question might be what needs to be done in the next
couple of weeks before the CRISP group starts its formal work?

Or to the members of the CRISP group from this region, what discussion
do you still think needs to happen in this region before the global work
starts?

Andrew
_______________________________________________
Iana-transition mailing list
Iana-transition at arin.net<mailto:Iana-transition at arin.net>
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition



--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006<tel:571-266-0006>


________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.



--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141114/9bc15196/attachment.html>

From john.sweeting at twcable.com  Fri Nov 21 10:15:49 2014
From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:15:49 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] Draft of ARIN proposal for review and comments
Message-ID: <D094C154.43405%john.sweeting@twcable.com>

All,

As members of the CRISP team representing the ARIN region Bill Woodcock, Michael Abejuela and I held an initial call on Nov 17th to discuss direction. Pulling from the comments that were already posted to this list as well as others Michael Abejuela put together the attached draft response to the RFP that we would like to use as the baseline to start our ARIN region discussion. Please review the document and provide input via this list. I want to thank Michael for doing this and also commend him on, what I think, is a very good first draft. We look forward to your input. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review and comment.

Your ARIN CRISP members ? Bill, Michael and John




________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141121/75150202/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IANA-ICG-RFP-ARIN-DRAFT-response[1].docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 239883 bytes
Desc: IANA-ICG-RFP-ARIN-DRAFT-response[1].docx
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141121/75150202/attachment.docx>

From jschiller at google.com  Fri Nov 21 10:28:39 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:28:39 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] Draft of ARIN proposal for review and comments
In-Reply-To: <D094C154.43405%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
References: <D094C154.43405%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2X1+TJebNwYY=ig18ckg3Sy50_7Ua1PNrRckgAPgjJ_-w@mail.gmail.com>

PDF attached

__Jason

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Sweeting, John <john.sweeting at twcable.com>
wrote:

>  All,
>
>  As members of the CRISP team representing the ARIN region Bill Woodcock,
> Michael Abejuela and I held an initial call on Nov 17th to discuss
> direction. Pulling from the comments that were already posted to this list
> as well as others Michael Abejuela put together the attached draft response
> to the RFP that we would like to use as the baseline to start our ARIN
> region discussion. Please review the document and provide input via this
> list. I want to thank Michael for doing this and also commend him on, what
> I think, is a very good first draft. We look forward to your input. Thanks
> in advance for taking the time to review and comment.
>
>  Your ARIN CRISP members - Bill, Michael and John
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
> copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
> are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that
> any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to
> the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and
> may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of
> this E-mail and any printout.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141121/f4912c30/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IANA-ICG-RFP-ARIN-DRAFT-response[1].pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 103087 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141121/f4912c30/attachment.pdf>

From David.Huberman at microsoft.com  Fri Nov 21 10:42:33 2014
From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:42:33 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] Draft of ARIN proposal for review and comments
In-Reply-To: <D094C154.43405%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
References: <D094C154.43405%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
Message-ID: <1416584565243.35244@microsoft.com>

Channeling my inner Megan Kruse with grammar nitpicks, and also some substantive editorial comments:?

Page 2: "which is associated with" should be "which are associated with" since the previous noun was "zones" plural.


Page 2: inconsistent capitalization of "Internet Number Resource Policies" throughout the document.  So far I see:
    Internet number resource policies

    Internet Number Resource Policies


Page 3: First full sentence.  "describe the proposed global policy" doesn't agree in singular/plural with the preceding text.  Perhaps replace "the proposed" with "a proposed" to denote that results occur when a policy is agreed upon?


Page 3: Paragraph 3 - you defined ASO Advisory Council (ASO AC) and then in paragraph 3 keep mentioning ASO *Address* Council.  I am not 100% sure, but don't you mean to use the defined initialism "ASO AC" in all instances of the third paragraph?


Page 3: Paragraph 4: you can substitute "Regional Internet Registries" with the defined initialism RIR.  This is true throughout the document - you may want to search-and-replace "Regional Internet Registries".  Just an idea.


 Page 4: "The five <RIRs> are intimately familiar with..."  I think this sentence is a run-on, as the second clause doesn't depend on the first clause. I'm not sure. Recommend breaking it into two different sentences, or at least using a semi-colon if you are expressing a singular idea.


Substantive comment, not editorial:  Page 5, the phrase "commensurate with current mechanisms" - I think this should be stricken.  The paragraph goes on to define specific parameters. I think it's better to define all the parameters of the service levels and performance reporting, rather than rely on associations ("commensurate with") that aren't explicitly defined right there.

Substantive comment:  Page 5, third paragraph, starting with "While it has not been utilized".   What is the purpose of this paragraph?  In what way does reaffirmation by the RIRs of their commitment to these goals germane to this document?


 Page 5/6 transition - you've already defined this term, ASO AC.




David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Principal, Global IP Addressing
________________________________
From: iana-transition-bounces at arin.net <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of Sweeting, John <john.sweeting at twcable.com>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 7:15 AM
To: iana-transition at arin.net
Subject: [Iana-transition] Draft of ARIN proposal for review and comments

All,

As members of the CRISP team representing the ARIN region Bill Woodcock, Michael Abejuela and I held an initial call on Nov 17th to discuss direction. Pulling from the comments that were already posted to this list as well as others Michael Abejuela put together the attached draft response to the RFP that we would like to use as the baseline to start our ARIN region discussion. Please review the document and provide input via this list. I want to thank Michael for doing this and also commend him on, what I think, is a very good first draft. We look forward to your input. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review and comment.

Your ARIN CRISP members - Bill, Michael and John




________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141121/8cc9217b/attachment.html>

From jschiller at google.com  Fri Nov 21 11:25:41 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:25:41 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] Draft of ARIN proposal for review and comments
In-Reply-To: <1416584565243.35244@microsoft.com>
References: <D094C154.43405%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<1416584565243.35244@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2X6xf5P+zQWakcfJWxzXbvpKUq=edh3siA1E5dA1iFv9w@mail.gmail.com>

Comments in line,

__Jason

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:42 AM, David Huberman <
David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:

>  Channeling my inner Megan Kruse with grammar nitpicks, and also some
> substantive editorial comments:
>
I support all grammar fixes.


>
> Page 2: "which is associated with" should be "which are associated with"
> since the previous noun was "zones" plural.
>
>
>  Page 2: inconsistent capitalization of "Internet Number Resource
> Policies" throughout the document.  So far I see:
>     Internet number resource policies
>
>     Internet Number Resource Policies
>
>
>  Page 3: First full sentence.  "describe the proposed global policy"
> doesn't agree in singular/plural with the preceding text.  Perhaps replace
> "the proposed" with "a proposed" to denote that results occur when a policy
> is agreed upon?
>
>
>  Page 3: Paragraph 3 - you defined ASO Advisory Council (ASO AC) and then
> in paragraph 3 keep mentioning ASO *Address* Council.  I am not 100% sure,
> but don't you mean to use the defined initialism "ASO AC" in all instances
> of the third paragraph?
>
>
>  Page 3: Paragraph 4: you can substitute "Regional Internet Registries"
> with the defined initialism RIR.  This is true throughout the document -
> you may want to search-and-replace "Regional Internet Registries".  Just an
> idea.
>
>
>   Page 4: "The five <RIRs> are intimately familiar with..."  I think this
> sentence is a run-on, as the second clause doesn't depend on the first
> clause. I'm not sure. Recommend breaking it into two different sentences,
> or at least using a semi-colon if you are expressing a singular idea.
>
>
>  Substantive comment, not editorial:  Page 5, the phrase "commensurate
> with current mechanisms" - I think this should be stricken.  The paragraph
> goes on to define specific parameters. I think it's better to define all
> the parameters of the service levels and performance reporting, rather than
> rely on associations ("commensurate with") that aren't explicitly defined
> right there.
>
I think if you really want to keep the "commensurate with current
mechanisms" text, then it is relevant in the NTIA Requirements section, as
part of the theme about building on an existing


>
> Substantive comment:  Page 5, third paragraph, starting with "While it has
> not been utilized".   What is the purpose of this paragraph?  In what way
> does reaffirmation by the RIRs of their commitment to these goals germane
> to this document?
>
I think this section is about the NTIA's ability to revoke the contract to
perform the IANA function, and this capability will pass from the NTIA to
the RIRs.  I think the rest of this section is an attempt to address how
such a function could be invoked and the oversight of such.  It points to
existing process, and existing oversight, and a commitment to the ASO-AC
completing a review and making recommendations.

I think this boils down to two points.
1. We have pretty good oversight (appropriate for the NTIA Requirements
section)
2. The ASO-AC will review RIR oversight, and shore up any issues with RIR
oversight
(which in general is fine if the work successfully concludes before
transition)

>
>   Page 5/6 transition - you've already defined this term, ASO AC.
>
>
>
>
>   *David R Huberman*
> Microsoft Corporation
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* iana-transition-bounces at arin.net <iana-transition-bounces at arin.net>
> on behalf of Sweeting, John <john.sweeting at twcable.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 21, 2014 7:15 AM
> *To:* iana-transition at arin.net
> *Subject:* [Iana-transition] Draft of ARIN proposal for review and
> comments
>
>  All,
>
>  As members of the CRISP team representing the ARIN region Bill Woodcock,
> Michael Abejuela and I held an initial call on Nov 17th to discuss
> direction. Pulling from the comments that were already posted to this list
> as well as others Michael Abejuela put together the attached draft response
> to the RFP that we would like to use as the baseline to start our ARIN
> region discussion. Please review the document and provide input via this
> list. I want to thank Michael for doing this and also commend him on, what
> I think, is a very good first draft. We look forward to your input. Thanks
> in advance for taking the time to review and comment.
>
>  Your ARIN CRISP members - Bill, Michael and John
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
> copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
> are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that
> any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to
> the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and
> may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of
> this E-mail and any printout.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-transition mailing list
> Iana-transition at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141121/7e39334b/attachment.html>

From jschiller at google.com  Fri Nov 21 12:48:42 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:48:42 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] Draft of ARIN proposal for review and comments
In-Reply-To: <CAC4yj2X6xf5P+zQWakcfJWxzXbvpKUq=edh3siA1E5dA1iFv9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D094C154.43405%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<1416584565243.35244@microsoft.com>
	<CAC4yj2X6xf5P+zQWakcfJWxzXbvpKUq=edh3siA1E5dA1iFv9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2X29dV1XmS0P-GVQiCiotjicVBe6PgjtQLJGKVS_foykQ@mail.gmail.com>

attached word doc with edits and notes.

Page 3 - paragraph starting "The Address Supporting Organization Advisory
Council (ASO AC)"
Noting David's edit that this should simply be Address Council.

The paragraph suggests the the ASO AC reviews Global Policy Process to
ensure significant viewpoints have been considered.

Actually it does three things.
1. reviews Global Policy Process to ensure the process for each RIR has
been followed
2. ensure significant viewpoints have been considered
3. in the event that non-identical policy is passed in each region, that
the unified text is not substantively different that what the communities
passed.

--

Page 5 - "The agreement should have the IANA operator perform
administration of the unallocated portions of the Internet number
registries on behalf of the Regional Internet Registries and specify
service levels and performance reporting  commensurate with current
mechanisms."

I wonder what conclusion the community will draw from the text suggesting
that the contract should include SLAs and performance reporting
commensurate with current mechanisms.

Does this suggest the current SLAs and reporting are adequate?
I suspect the community does not know what the current SLAs are (although
reporting is pretty clear).


Does this instead suggest that ICANN is doing a fine job with the IANA
operations WRT number resources, and
the current SLAs and reporting may or may not be adequate, but we do not
see addressing this as critical, we should keep the current structure in
place for now, and modify it in the future.

If we want to change the SLAs and reporting, should this require opening up
and resigning the contract?

Might it be better easier to change SLAs with a standalone living document,
that he contract refers to?

--

Open, Transparent, and Bottom-up

I was expecting everywhere I saw "open" to also see transparent and
bottom-up.
Page 5 - paragraph starting "While it has not been utilized..."

"the RIRs should reaffirm their commitment to open, transparent,
[bottom-up,] and accountable global number policy."

--

Page 5 - paragraph starting "While it has not been utilized..."
Shouldn't this affirmation also be made to the RIR communities?

Page 7 - point 1.

"1. 1. Global number policy development which is open, transparent, and
[bottom-up] to any and all participants."

--

Page 5 - end of  paragraph starting "While it has not been utilized..." and
the next paragraph.
I think an ASO AC review of RIR accountability is a good idea.  The
conclusion of this work should be supported by each of the communities, and
implemented by the RIR prior to the transition of the NTIA contract.

This should include a review of RIR governance.

This should also include a review of the oversight of IANA functions WRT
the contract with ICANN for the number related operations, and oversight of
governance of ICANN WRT ratification of Global Policy Ratification.

I expect this work would include a formal process for modification of IANA
function SLA metrics and reporting, as well as a formal process of
reviewing IANA operations reports and declaration of (non-)compliance, and
appropriate community (or membership) oversight.


___Jason



On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
wrote:

> Comments in line,
>
> __Jason
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:42 AM, David Huberman <
> David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>  Channeling my inner Megan Kruse with grammar nitpicks, and also some
>> substantive editorial comments:
>>
> I support all grammar fixes.
>
>
>>
>> Page 2: "which is associated with" should be "which are associated with"
>> since the previous noun was "zones" plural.
>>
>>
>>  Page 2: inconsistent capitalization of "Internet Number Resource
>> Policies" throughout the document.  So far I see:
>>     Internet number resource policies
>>
>>     Internet Number Resource Policies
>>
>>
>>  Page 3: First full sentence.  "describe the proposed global policy"
>> doesn't agree in singular/plural with the preceding text.  Perhaps replace
>> "the proposed" with "a proposed" to denote that results occur when a policy
>> is agreed upon?
>>
>>
>>  Page 3: Paragraph 3 - you defined ASO Advisory Council (ASO AC) and
>> then in paragraph 3 keep mentioning ASO *Address* Council.  I am not 100%
>> sure, but don't you mean to use the defined initialism "ASO AC" in all
>> instances of the third paragraph?
>>
>>
>>  Page 3: Paragraph 4: you can substitute "Regional Internet Registries"
>> with the defined initialism RIR.  This is true throughout the document -
>> you may want to search-and-replace "Regional Internet Registries".  Just an
>> idea.
>>
>>
>>   Page 4: "The five <RIRs> are intimately familiar with..."  I
>> think this sentence is a run-on, as the second clause doesn't depend on the
>> first clause. I'm not sure. Recommend breaking it into two different
>> sentences, or at least using a semi-colon if you are expressing a singular
>> idea.
>>
>>
>>  Substantive comment, not editorial:  Page 5, the phrase "commensurate
>> with current mechanisms" - I think this should be stricken.  The paragraph
>> goes on to define specific parameters. I think it's better to define all
>> the parameters of the service levels and performance reporting, rather than
>> rely on associations ("commensurate with") that aren't explicitly defined
>> right there.
>>
> I think if you really want to keep the "commensurate with current
> mechanisms" text, then it is relevant in the NTIA Requirements section, as
> part of the theme about building on an existing
>
>
>>
>> Substantive comment:  Page 5, third paragraph, starting with "While it
>> has not been utilized".   What is the purpose of this paragraph?  In what
>> way does reaffirmation by the RIRs of their commitment to these goals
>> germane to this document?
>>
> I think this section is about the NTIA's ability to revoke the contract to
> perform the IANA function, and this capability will pass from the NTIA to
> the RIRs.  I think the rest of this section is an attempt to address how
> such a function could be invoked and the oversight of such.  It points to
> existing process, and existing oversight, and a commitment to the ASO-AC
> completing a review and making recommendations.
>
> I think this boils down to two points.
> 1. We have pretty good oversight (appropriate for the NTIA Requirements
> section)
> 2. The ASO-AC will review RIR oversight, and shore up any issues with RIR
> oversight
> (which in general is fine if the work successfully concludes before
> transition)
>
>>
>>   Page 5/6 transition - you've already defined this term, ASO AC.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   *David R Huberman*
>> Microsoft Corporation
>> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>>   ------------------------------
>> *From:* iana-transition-bounces at arin.net <
>> iana-transition-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of Sweeting, John <
>> john.sweeting at twcable.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, November 21, 2014 7:15 AM
>> *To:* iana-transition at arin.net
>> *Subject:* [Iana-transition] Draft of ARIN proposal for review and
>> comments
>>
>>  All,
>>
>>  As members of the CRISP team representing the ARIN region Bill
>> Woodcock, Michael Abejuela and I held an initial call on Nov 17th to
>> discuss direction. Pulling from the comments that were already posted to
>> this list as well as others Michael Abejuela put together the attached
>> draft response to the RFP that we would like to use as the baseline to
>> start our ARIN region discussion. Please review the document and provide
>> input via this list. I want to thank Michael for doing this and also
>> commend him on, what I think, is a very good first draft. We look forward
>> to your input. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review and comment.
>>
>>  Your ARIN CRISP members - Bill, Michael and John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
>> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
>> copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
>> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
>> are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that
>> any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to
>> the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and
>> may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
>> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of
>> this E-mail and any printout.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iana-transition mailing list
>> Iana-transition at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141121/4df407ac/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: schiller-IANA-ICG-RFP-ARIN-DRAFT-response[1].pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 143231 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141121/4df407ac/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: schiller-IANA-ICG-RFP-ARIN-DRAFT-response[1].docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 244220 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141121/4df407ac/attachment.docx>

From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Nov 21 13:08:41 2014
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:08:41 +0000
Subject: [Iana-transition] Draft of ARIN proposal for review and comments
In-Reply-To: <CAC4yj2X6xf5P+zQWakcfJWxzXbvpKUq=edh3siA1E5dA1iFv9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D094C154.43405%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<1416584565243.35244@microsoft.com>
	<CAC4yj2X6xf5P+zQWakcfJWxzXbvpKUq=edh3siA1E5dA1iFv9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A0887DDB-F03B-4BEA-B3E3-A42AD9AEACDE@corp.arin.net>

On Nov 21, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:
...
2. The ASO-AC will review RIR oversight, and shore up any issues with RIR oversight
(which in general is fine if the work successfully concludes before transition)

Indeed...  If that is not the case (recognizing that there may be some tasks that
require longer implementation periods), then one option would be to designate
some issues (and their corresponding solutions) as "critical" for stewardship
transition, with the explicit requirement that addressing those critical issues also
creates circumstances sufficient for insuring that any remainder is addressed
promptly post-transition.

(This would appear parallel in some respects to the "Track I/Track II" approach
 to ICANN Accountability being discussed by that CCWG team)

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141121/b2a9ff9c/attachment.html>

From jschiller at google.com  Fri Nov 21 14:56:49 2014
From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:56:49 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] Draft of ARIN proposal for review and comments
In-Reply-To: <A0887DDB-F03B-4BEA-B3E3-A42AD9AEACDE@corp.arin.net>
References: <D094C154.43405%john.sweeting@twcable.com>
	<1416584565243.35244@microsoft.com>
	<CAC4yj2X6xf5P+zQWakcfJWxzXbvpKUq=edh3siA1E5dA1iFv9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<A0887DDB-F03B-4BEA-B3E3-A42AD9AEACDE@corp.arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAC4yj2WZVrNpqQhk+fb28PPNvhV_-DC6B=W=4Dv6JeHzy9o6sg@mail.gmail.com>

Sounds good to me.

__Jason

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:08 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>  On Nov 21, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
> wrote:
>
> ...
>  2. The ASO-AC will review RIR oversight, and shore up any issues with
> RIR oversight
>  (which in general is fine if the work successfully concludes before
> transition)
>
>
> Indeed...  If that is not the case (recognizing that there may be some
> tasks that
> require longer implementation periods), then one option would be to
> designate
> some issues (and their corresponding solutions) as "critical" for
> stewardship
> transition, with the explicit requirement that addressing those critical
> issues also
> creates circumstances sufficient for insuring that any remainder is
> addressed
> promptly post-transition.
>
>  (This would appear parallel in some respects to the "Track I/Track II"
> approach
>  to ICANN Accountability being discussed by that CCWG team)
>
>  FYI,
> /John
>
>  John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/iana-transition/attachments/20141121/a498ea5b/attachment.html>