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

Mon Feb 16 19:26:29 CET 2015

Hi Izumi,

Since the substance of our response is to indicate that there is no
inconsistency with the IETF proposal, I personally OK with omitting the
sentence as Richard suggested.

This doesn't change our position and also gives us flexibility.

I have one question:

>  * 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.

Does it make sense to clarify that this is a requirement for the holder,
whoever that be, of these assets (IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain)?

Andrei

Izumi Okutani wrote on 16/02/15 18:30:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
> 