[CRISP-TEAM] CRISP TEAM - revision to proposal - Section III

[Izumi Okutani]

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.

Thanks,
Izumi

(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.
> 
>                                  -Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>