[CRISP-TEAM] [NRO-IANAXFER] Thanks, and comments on the second draft proposal
rendek at ripe.net
Wed Jan 14 08:19:46 CET 2015
This was a great summary and has made the reveiw of these changes much
easier. I have seen the comments from Andrei, Alan and Bill on this
thread. Please find my comment inline.
I think we are making great progress and after these changes, in my
opinion we are close to a version we can all have a final stab at (over
a nice cup of tea).
On 1/13/15 5:11 PM, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Thank you very much for summarizing this!
> Izumi Okutani wrote on 13/01/15 17:45:
>> - 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 think the description of the service is more clear as suggested in
> this latest revision. I also like that we moved away from "delegation"
> to "the administration of the special-purpose “IN-ADDR.ARPA”
> and“IP6.ARPA" DNS zones, which I think eliminates Sullivan's concern.
I agree with PaulW's changes here as agreed by Andrei and Alan.
>> - 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
> Yes, I am, modulo some of the changes I proposed just before.
I agree with the statements made by Alan in this section. SO happy with
most of these changes but lets make sure we refer correctly to the IANA
and the IANA Number Services Operator correctly.
>> - 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 am fine with that. I think specifications is less ambiguous and
> sufficient in this case.
I agree with this. (as does Alan and Andrei)
>> - 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)
Yes, I already gave comment here and I see Alan agreed
>> - 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]
> Along with the following "However, it would remove a significant element
> of oversight from the current system." I think "no impact" is an
> accurate statement.
I agree with Andrei and Alan here. Use 'no impact'.
>> - Wording change in proposal element (3)
>> In description of IANA trademark and iana.org domain
>> - Added " (in particular the IANA Numbers Registries)"
> That is fine.
I agree with Andrei and Alan, and am fine with this change
>> - RIR communities --> Internet community
> Ah, I did not spot this! I think we are speaking on behalf of the RIR
> communities, so we cannot say the "Internet community".
I agree with Bill and Andrei here. I would like to remain with RIR
>> [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."
> I think this is cleaner and more concise, since we provided the
> definition of the "IANA Numbering Services”in I.A.
I can confirm that Nurani and I have reviewed this and we agree that
this change can be made. We note that we have provided the definition in
section I.A so we agree with both Andrei and Alan that this can be
deleted. It is indeed more clear and concise.
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP