[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: RE: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG
Izumi Okutani
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Tue Feb 17 00:51:16 CET 2015
Hi Andrei,
Thanks for your feedback.
> 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.
Indeed.
> 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)?
Yes, it makes sense to me.
I reflected this on the last bullet point as below.
CRISP Team,
As we are getting closer to the deadline for comments from the
community, I will share this on the ianaxfer list, explaining that this
is still under discussions with the CRISP Team.
* 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)
* The holder of the the mark and domain are expected to keep a
condition, that IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain are available for
the use of IANA Numbering Services, in case we change the IANA
operator in the future.
Izumi
On 2015/02/17 3:26, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> 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
>>
More information about the CRISP
mailing list