[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG
apb at cequrux.com
Thu Feb 19 12:07:11 CET 2015
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>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
Yes, I think we should work on statement purely from the numbers
community, and a joint statement can be added later, or not, as
the situation warrants.
>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.
That seems like a good way of handling the possibility that a joint
statemt may come later.
I agree with the essence of your draft reply below. However, I
will suggest some minor editing.
> 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.
My suggestion: Give more emphasis to "we do not observe
incompatibilities", like this:
We do not observe incompatibilities between the proposals from
the numbers and protocol parameters communities, for reasons
given below. However, if they are indeed incompatible, then
the numbers community would be willing to modify our proposal.
> * 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
Where you say "given", I'd say "provided", because I think it's not yet
known what the IETF and IETF Trust will decide.
I'd also be inclined to move the hardest requirement to the beginning
of the list, like this:
* The numbers community has a requirement that the IANA
trademark and IANA.ORG domain must be available for the use
of IANA Numbering Services in the future, even if the IANA
Numbering Services Operator is changed from ICANN to some other
operator, or if different communities choose different IANA
operators in the future.
* In order to meet that requirement, 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
* The numbers community considers the IETF Trust as an acceptable
option, provided this is supported by the IETF community, and
the IETF Trust is willing to accept it. This is not the only
option, and the numbers community is open to consider other
solutions which work for other affected parties.
> 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.
I'd emphasise the word "must", and reword slightly:
To summarize: the numbers proposal does not set a "MUST"
condition to transfer the mark and domain to the IETF Trust or
to any other specific entity, and the IETF proposal does not
say it will oppose transfer of the mark and domain to the IETF
Trust, so we do not observe any incompatibilities.
> Best Regards,
> Izumi Okutani
> Chair, the CRISP Team
Thanks for drafting the reply.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the CRISP