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

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Feb 19 10:29:59 CET 2015


CRISP Team,


There are no additional comments on the ianaxfer list regarding the
question from the ICG on inconsistencies, so I'd like to prepare the
actual response.

If you recall my update from ICANN52 Singapore, we discussed with Russ
and Jari to make a joint statement with the IETF.

I am consulting Russ and Jari whether we should submit joint +
indivisual statements from each of the communities, or stick to a single
joint statement by the IETF and the numbers.


I haven't heard from them at this stage so I suggest:

 - We work on our reponse to the ICG as the numbers community, so that
   we have something to repond to the ICG before the 21 Feb deadline,
   as the numbers at least
 - We can still submit a joint statement with the IETF, in addition to
   this, after we hear from the IETF


Based on the above, this is a draft reply to Alissa.

 - Once I re-confirm with Russ and Jari that they are happy to make a
   joint statement, I will add this sentence at the end:

   "The IETF and the numbers community are working on the joint
   statement in addition, which we plan to submit the ICG."

Please let me know if you have any feedback to the draft before UTC13:00
20th Feb. I will submit to the ICG before 23:00 UTC 20th Feb.



Izumi

----
Dear Alissa,


Thank you for sharing the question from the ICG.

> The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them?

If the two proposals are incompatible and if needed, the numbers
community is open to consider to modify the proposal.

On the other hand, we do not observe incompatibilities in our proposal
with the proposal for protocol parameters based on our observation below.

 * 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.

 * The holder of 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.

To summarize, given the numbers proposal does not set a must condition
to transfer the mark and domain to the IETF Trust nor any other 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
incompatibilities.


Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani
Chair, the CRISP Team


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:08:54 +0900
From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
To: Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch>, ianaxfer at nro.net

Dear Richard,


Thank you for your feedback and suggestion. This would be more
consistent with the proposal text as also mentioned by Seun - I deleted
the sentence " 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.

In addition, the last bullet point now clarifies that this is a
requirement for the holder of IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain
(whoever that may be).


Dear Colleagues,

While this is still being confirmed with the CRISP Team, below is the
latest summary of the intention of the number resources community I
observe at this stage:

 * 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 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.

Given the numbers proposal does not set a must condition to transfer the
mark and domain to the IETF Trust nor any other 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.


Please share your feedback before 18th Feb if you have any other
comments to the above summary.


Regards,
Izumi

On 2015/02/17 2:11, Richard Hill wrote:
> 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
> 


_______________________________________________
ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer at nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer






More information about the CRISP mailing list