[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Re: Status Update from the numbers

[Izumi Okutani]

As factual information, I added about community discussions on the
ianaxfer list, as in the response from the IETF. (second to the last
paragraph)

Izumi

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Alissa and the ICG,

We refer to the question that the ICG asked the numbers community
on 9 Feb 2015
<https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-February/000397.html>:

> 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?

We do not observe incompatibilities between the proposals from the
numbers and protocol parameters communities, for reasons given below.

* It is expectations of the numbers community that the IANA
 trademark and IANA.ORG domain are 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 expectation, 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.

This reflects the discussions in the number resources commnunity on this
<ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list archived at:

 Question from the ICG
 https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-February/subject.html

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.  From discussions on the IETF ianaplan group, we
observe subsequent decisions by the IETF ianaplan group and the IETF
Trust further support the position that there is no conflict.



Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani on behalf of the CRISP Team

On 2015/02/21 3:33, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> CRISP Team,
> 
> 
> Sharing the updated draft response, in the course of consulting with the 
> IETF, so our reponses are consistent.
> 
> Sentence below is now deleted from the previous draft.
> 
> "However, if they are indeed incompatible, then the numbers community
> would be willing to consider modifying our proposal."
> 
> There was a question why we state this, and not simply say "we do not 
> see the incompatibility?" - and Alan and I felt that while we added this 
> as a direct answer to the question from the ICG, it was not clearly 
> discussed on the ianaxfer list so better to omit this part.
> 
> 
> Izumi
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Alissa and the ICG,
> 
> We refer to the question that the ICG asked the numbers community
> on 9 Feb 2015
> <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-February/000397.html>:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> We do not observe incompatibilities between the proposals from the
> numbers and protocol parameters communities, for reasons given below.
> 
> * It is expectations of the numbers community that the IANA
>   trademark and IANA.ORG domain are 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: 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.  From discussions on the IETF ianaplan group, we
> observe subsequent decisions by the IETF ianaplan group and the IETF
> Trust further support the position that there is no conflict.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Izumi Okutani on behalf of the CRISP Team
> 
>