[CRISP-TEAM] CRISP TEAM - revision to proposal - Section III
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Dec 18 11:36:20 CET 2014
Michael, would you help us incorporate this feedback into the draft text?
i.e., Clarify we maintain the current gPDP process and simply remove
ICANN board approval step (not have another non-ICANN ratifying body).
If you need text suggetions, please let me know.
(2014/12/18 2:44), Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 2014, at 9:15 AM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Michael Abejuela wrote:
>>> New text:
>>> While it has not been utilized with respect to Internet number registries, the existing NTIA contract for the IANA services for the Internet number registries also provides a point of oversight for the policy authority for the Internet number registry system. To resolve the inherent conflict with the contemplated IANA functions operator (ICANN) serving both a role as a contractor and as a body responsible for ratifying globally approved policies under the gPDP, an amendment to the ASO MOU is proposed to remove ICANN as the ratifying body under the gPDP.
>> Will there be a different ratifying body instead of ICANN? I think the idea is that the gPDP will proceed as before, up to and including the point where the NRO-NC ratifies the proposal, but then the proposal will immediately become policy, without needing to be ratified by the ICANN Board.
> Yes, that was my exact suggestion. That deconflicts ICANN, so they're not on both sides of the SLA.
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP