[CRISP-TEAM] [NRO-IANAXFER] Thanks, and comments on the second draft proposal

Alan Barrett apb at cequrux.com
Tue Jan 13 21:29:15 CET 2015

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> As promised at the 12th call, this is a list of substantive 
> changes I see.

> 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

Yes, I think we should say "not-for-profis membership-based 
organizations".  And let's say it in section I.B "A description of 
the customer".

> - "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'.

I thought we agreed to change "that fact" to "these facts", since 
there are several facts (about different aspects of IPR and domain 

>- 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]

I am happy with all Paul Wilson's changes in this section.

>- 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

I am also happy with most of these changes, but I don't agree about the
change from "the IANA operator" to "the IANA".

In a note in the document, Paul says:

    I suggest to consistently use “IANA” or “the IANA
    operator” throughout the document.  For simplicity my
    suggestion is “IANA”.

I think that we should use "the IANA" or "the IANA Number Services 
Operator" in different places according to what we mean.  I think 
that we often mean the operator, but sometimes mean to refer to 
the IANA as a concept independent of the operator.  For example, 
the IETF delegates responsibilities to the IANA (not to the 
operator), but then the IANA operator does things in fulfilment of 
such responsibilities.

>- 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)

I agree with that.

>- Agreement of all RIR communities (in according with their respective
>  PDPs) : (instead of RIRs in the current text
>Other note:
>- 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)

I also agree with Paul here.

>- 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]

Most of these are editorial changes that I agree with.

The change from "would have minimal effect" to "would have no effect on
the existing policy-making framework" is a substantive change, and I
also agree with it.

>- Wording change in proposal element (3)

I am fine with "Service level agreement to be established between 
the RIRs and ICANN as the IANA Numbering Services Operator".

>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]

I am fine with these changes.

>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]

I think that "the IANA Number Services" is defined in section 
I.A, and the definition includes "the administration of the 
special-purpose “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” DNS zones, 
in accordance with IPv4 and IPv6 allocations, respectively."  So I 
think the change is good.

--apb (Alan Barrett)

More information about the CRISP mailing list