[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG
nurani at netnod.se
Thu Feb 19 17:51:38 CET 2015
I agree. I think Alan's comments are good.
Thanks for drafting Izumi!
> On 19 feb 2015, at 16:35, "Sweeting, John" <john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
> Support and like Alan¹s edits.
>> On 2/19/15, 6:07 AM, "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>> Services Operator.
>> * 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)
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP