[Iana-transition] RIPE slide deck on the matter.

Jason Schiller jschiller at google.com
Wed Nov 12 19:29:57 EST 2014


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
the NTIA and ICANN for the IANA functions, the SLAs doc
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/icann-proposal>, the result
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

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
(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,


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>

More information about the Iana-transition mailing list