[CRISP-TEAM] [NRO-IANAXFER] Thanks, and comments on the second draft proposal
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Tue Jan 13 17:45:29 CET 2015
As promised at the 12th call, this is a list of substantive changes I see.
It has been observed by Alan that substantive changes are not limited to
Paul Wilson's inputs, so I'm not totally sure if it's sufficient to just
cover Paul Wilson's edits but I here is a list of substantive changes
focusing from PW.
I see most of his suggested changes focus on description of the current
state, and not much on the proposal section III
(but 3 points to hightlight related to this: III.A.,III.A.2.,III.A.3.ii)
This doesn's list what Nurani has listed as acceptable changes in the
quoted e-mail and suggestions from Paul Rendek listed below.
- prefer to use the word 'organisation' than association
- "It is the preference of the RIR communities that all relevant
parties acknowledge that fact as part of the transition."
to remove the hard return and make this the last sentence from the
paragraph above and the word 'that' to 'this'.
- It is formatted in the way to define "“IANA Numbering Services”."
- Changes in some wording of the IANA services decribed
- Added descritption about other services including returned IP address
space, and general registry maintenance
- Use of the word "subdomains below" and replaced with alternative
[Alan: the last text is your suggestion to Andrew Sullivan to would like
you especially to see if you are OK]
- Changes in wording to describe the number resources services
- Changes in wording about description of overlaps with the IETF
[Andrei and Alan: Would like to especially confirm whether you are
comfortable with the way it has suggested to describe and the choice of
- Change in wording to describe the global policy development process,
deleted that part which says included the part covered by the IETF
(his point is IETF defines spefications and not policies, it seems)
- Agreement of all RIR communities (in according with their respective
PDPs) : (instead of RIRs in the current text
- His point about "It is incorrect that an identical version must be
approved by all RIRs." had been addressed by Paul Rendek and Nurani's
comments (i.e. we change according to Paul Wilson)
- would not have--> no any significant impact on the continuity of
- services currently provided by ICANN-->
Internet number-related IANA Numbering Services
A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA
functions, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA
functions operator, *would not have--> no* any significant impact on the
continuity of Internet number-related IANA Numbering Services [delete:
services currently provided by ICANN]
- Wording change in proposal element (3)
In description of IANA trademark and iana.org domain
- Added " (in particular the IANA Numbers Registries)"
- RIR communities --> Internet community
[Andrei you may especially want to check here]
IANA Agreement Principles ii
- Deleted "The IANA Operator will delegate subdomains below the
IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains in accordance with the allocation of
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses."
[Paul and Nurani you may especially want to check here]
On 2015/01/13 20:40, Paul Rendek wrote:
> Hey Nurani, Izumi,
> Thanks for this. Okay, I agree with taking a plan B to the suggestion
> you make.
> Please see my comments inline:
> On 1/13/15 10:41 AM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>> Thank you Nurani, this is extremely helpful.
>> The parts other than what you have listed may have implications to the
>> nuances we have agreed.
>> Michael has already worked to incorporate edits from Paul so we have two
>> options to work on other parts (ie not simple to incorporate):
>> a. See updated draft from Michael an incorporate the part where no one
>> has raised issue about changing the language.
>> b. Not incorporate the parts other than what's listed by Nurani
>> Let me hear your prefered option on the ML as much as possible and
>> confirm at the call today.
>> My preference would be b. in the interests of time, while this would add
>> extra work for Michael and may delay the editorial version to be
>> published. Let's also confirm in terms of the schedule.
> Yes, I support plan B
>> Please also see my comments inline.
>> On 2015/01/13 18:44, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> As promised, I have gone through the changes suggested by Paul Wilson and identified:
>>> o Straightforward editorial changes
>>> These are changes I believe doesn't need any discussion, but are simply editorial in nature.
>>> o Consistent use of terms
>>> Two suggestions on the consistent use of terms. I believe these are sensible and non-controversial changes. However, in some parts it seems to rework larger parts of the text and there we might need to discuss how to best handle those paragraphs.
>>> o Correction on the description of the gPDP
>>> For this I am asking the group for clarification and the potential need to correct the text.
>>> I have left all other changes suggested by PW, as I feel they may need to require discussion first. I will leave that to Izumi to decide how to best handle.
>>> I hope this was helpful.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Straightforward editorial changes
>>> The most relevant IANA registries are:
>>> PW's suggested change:
>>> The relevant IANA registries are:
>>> If the ICANN Board rejects the proposed policy, it delivers to the ASO ACa statement of its concerns...
>>> PW's suggested change:
>>> If the ICANN Board rejects the proposed policy, it delivers to the ASO AC a statement of its concerns...
>>> By agreement of all RIRs, the ASO AC may forward a new proposed policy
>>> PW's suggested change:
>>> By agreement of all RIR communities (in according with their respective PDPs), the ASO AC may forward a new proposed policy
>>> IV. A.
>>> would coordinate their decisions via the NRO EC (made up of the RIR Directors and Chief Executives).
>>> PW's suggested change:
>>> ... would coordinate their decisions via the NRO EC (made up of appointed representatives of each RIR, normally the CEOs).
>> I agree what you listed here are straight forward.
> I agree, good additions, straight forward.
>>> Consistent use of terms
>>> o "IANA Numbering Services Operator" - suggested by PW
>>> - Using a consistent term is sensible and this term is fine with me. I also find it useful to coin one single term for the number-related services provided by IANA.
>>> (However, I suggest refraining from capitalising each word, but that is of course a matter of style and preference.)
>> + 1. Have no opinion about capitalizing.
> I would like to see this capitalised as was suggested in the edits by
> Paul Wilson. It just reads more clearly to me.
>>> o "The RIRs are not-for-profit membership associations" - suggested by PW
>>> - Again, using a consistent term is sensible.
>>> I think "organisations" is more appropriate but I will leave that for the RIR staff to decide.
>> + 1 including leaving to RIR staff to decide associations/organisations.
> I think I would prefer to use the word 'organisation' here. I also think
> its more appropriate.
>>> Possible correction regarding the gPDP
>>> Then there is also the comment on the gPDP:
>>> "Any individual may submit a global proposal. Each RIR community must ratify an identical version of the proposed policy."
>>> PW's suggested text:
>>> Any individual may submit a global proposal, which must be agreed by all five RIR communities, in accordance with their respective policy development processes.
>>> PW's comment: "It is incorrect that an identical version must be approved by all RIRs."
>>> If this indeed is incorrect, it will need to be corrected. Can we seek clarification on this?
>> Perhaps someone from RIR could help us confirm the process with your
>> respective policy staff?
> I think I like the suggested text that PaulW proposes here. Sometimes we
> have very slight nuances in the different regions and I think this helps
> make this system robust. That is why we ahve Regional Internet
> Registries and it works...
> I think Paul's text here is clear and easy on the eye and hits the point
> that needs to be made. I agree with it.
>> As one more possible point which may be straight forward.
>> It is the preference of the RIR communities that all relevant parties
>> acknowledge that fact as part of the transition.
>> Comment from PW:
>> "It is not clear which fact is referred to here."
>> This looks to me like a part which simply needs clarification in the
>> language from the previous sentence.
> I agree. Okay, my suggestion here is to remove the hard return and make
> this the last sentence from the paragraph above and the word 'that' to
> Looking good folks... thanks for raising these.
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP