A huge milestone was achieved this morning when the CRISP team submitted the finalized response document to the ICG (IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group).
This document– submitted within the deadline set by the ICG–responds to ICG’s request for proposal from the Internet numbers community for the IANA stewardship transition.
This caps off over a month of intensive work for the CRISP team. The team held 14 teleconference calls during this period, and maintained a public discussions mailing list. Each of these calls, and the mailing list, were open and accessible to observers.
During this period, the CRISP team also released two draft response documents for community feedback and comments. Every comment from the community was discussed and considered by the CRISP team. Some of these comments resulted in a change to the response document, mainly for clarity and accuracy reasons; but none resulted in any major alteration to the key principles initially proposed by the CRISP team.
The principles remained that:
- ICANN should continue as the IANA functions operator for the IANA numbering services;
- A new service level agreement should be signed between ICANN and the RIRs;
- A new review committee, with representations from each RIR community, should be established to advise the NRO EC on the review of ICANN’s performance and meeting of identified service levels (under the service level agreement).
Within the Asia Pacific region, we are very grateful for the participation of our CRISP team members Izumi Okutani and Dr Govind. Izumi had added responsibility as chair of the CRISP team, and very ably and successfully marshaled the group of 15–each with their own viewpoint and message from their own community– to finally arrive at a document that has the support and consensus of all the CRISP team members.
In the following video you can watch a discussion between Pablo Hinojosa and myself about the work done by the CRISP team during the last month and a half, summarizing the document that the RIR communities produced as input to the IANA stewardship transition process.
The views expressed by the authors of this blog are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of APNIC. Please note a Code of Conduct applies to this blog.