[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: RE: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,


What are your thoughts on Richard's comment?

This would be the summary if we delete "It is not a must to complete
transfer of the mark and domain to a specific entity at the time of the
IANA stewardship transition." as suggested by Richard.

 * It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the mark
   and the name be transferred to an entity independent of the
   IANA Numbering Services Operator.

 * The numbers community considers the IETF Trust as an acceptable
   option, given this is supported by the IETF community, and the IETF
   Trust is willing to accept it. This is not the only option and open
   to consider an option which works for the IETF community.

   (I am only mentioning the IETF as this is the community where the
    inconsistency was pointed out by the ICG at this point. This may
    change once the names have submitted the proposal)

 * It is expected to keep a condition, that the mark and domain are
   available for the use of IANA Numbering Services, in case we change
   the IANA operator in the future.

I'm personally fine with the above version, as the deleted sentence is
covered by the word "preference" in the first bullet point.

Please let me know your feedback before UTC 17:30 17th Feb, if you have
any other comments about deleting the sentence.


Thanks,
Izumi


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: RE: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:11:44 +0100
From: Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch>
To: 'Izumi Okutani' <izumi at nic.ad.jp>, ianaxfer at nro.net

Dear Izumi,

Thank you for this. In the first bullet, I think that the last sentence
should be deleted. That is, the following should be deleted: " It is not a
must to complete transfer of the mark and domain to a specific entity at the
time of the IANA stewardship transition."

OK otherwise.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net [mailto:ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net] On
> Behalf Of Izumi Okutani
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 18:06
> To: ianaxfer at nro.net
> Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG
> 
> Thank you all for your inputs.
> 
> Would it be fair to summarize the numbers community's intention
> expressed so far as:
> 
>  * It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the mark
>    and the name be transferred to an entity independent of the
>    IANA Numbering Services Operator. It is not a must to complete
>    transfer of the mark and domain to a specific entity at the time of
>    the IANA stewardship transition.
> 
>  * The numbers community considers the IETF Trust as an acceptable
>    option, given this is supported by the IETF community, and the IETF
>    Trust is willing to accept it. This is not the only option and open
>    to consider an option which works for the IETF community.
> 
>    (I am only mentioning the IETF as this is the community where the
>     inconsistency was pointed out by the ICG at this point. This may
>     change once the names have submitted the proposal)
> 
>  * It is expected to keep a condition, that the mark and domain are
>    available for the use of IANA Numbering Services, in case we change
>    the IANA operator in the future.
> 
> If there is no objection to the above summary, the suggested response
> to the ICG would be: (with possible changes in some wording)
> 
> Given the numbers proposal does not set a must condition to transfer
> the mark and domain to the IETF Trust nor any specific entity, and the
> IETF proposal does not say it will oppose to consider transfer of the
> mark and domain to the IETF Trust, we do not observe any
> inconsistencies.
> 
> I see no objections observed for the joint statement with the IETF, so
> we will consider making a joint statement, given this is also supported
> by the IETF community.
> 
> 
> Izumi
> 
> 
> On 2015/02/12 10:31, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Hans Petter Holen <hph at oslo.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> My thinking is that the IANA name is going to be more cumbersome to
> >> change for the ITEF than for the RIRs, so I would go with wathever
> >> the IETF can live with.
> >>
> >
> > Just to note my personal agreement with the view above as indeed its
> > been my opinion since the topic was raised but i gave in to the
> spirit
> > of consensus ;-).
> >
> >>
> >> The RIR communities can at a rather low cost rename the function to
> >> the Global Number Registry or something like that.
> >>
> >
> > Thats correct; a distinction which was also raised on the IANAPLAN
> > list [1]
> >
> > Cheers!
> > 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01635.html
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Hans Petter Holen
> >> Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ianaxfer mailing list
> >> ianaxfer at nro.net
> >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ianaxfer mailing list
> > ianaxfer at nro.net
> > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer