[CRISP-TEAM] [NRO-IANAXFER] Thanks, and comments on the second draft proposal
nurani at netnod.se
Wed Jan 14 07:57:01 CET 2015
On 13 jan 2015, at 22:41, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>> I am a member of the ASO AC. Global policy proposals have almost always been slightly different in different RIRs. There have been differences in section numbering, punctuation, spelling, and even small differences in wording. One of the steps is for the RIR staff to prepare a common version, which is the one sent to ICANN and the IANA operator.
>> We should be accurate, or we should be concise. One option is to correct the text that’s there, the other is to elide it. It sounds like it can’t be left to stand as-is.
>> My vote is to elide. We don’t need to explain the whole world in this document, and it’s overlong already.
> I think Paul Wilson's text addresses this point. We can just keep his
> text, which removes the word "identical".
Ok with me.
>>>> 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."
>>> It should be "these facts", and it refers to the facts from the preceding paragraphs.
>> Well, if it’s unclear to someone, it may be unclear to others, and if they’re in a different paragraph, saying so may help.
> The current draft says:
> It is important that through the stewardship transition
> the IPR status of the registries is clear and ensures
> free unlimited access to the public registry data. It is
> the expectation of the Internet community that the IANA
> Numbers Registries are in the public domain.
> It is also the expectation of the RIR community that
> non-public information related to the IANA number resource
> registries and corresponding services, including the
> provision of reverse DNS delegation in IN-ADDR.ARPA
> and IP6.ARPA, is managed by the IANA operator and will
> be transferred to its successor(s) along with relevant
> It is the preference of the RIR community that all
> relevant parties acknowledge these facts as part of the
> Perhaps it would help to change "acknowledge these facts"
> to "agrees to these expectations".
That works for me.
> --apb (Alan Barrett)
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP