[CRISP-TEAM] Interim version, not yet checked visually in Word...

Alan Barrett apb at cequrux.com
Thu Jan 15 07:26:13 CET 2015

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> NEW:
>> This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e., the numbers
>> community, the protocol parameters community, and the names community)
>> will have independent arrangements with the IANA Functions Operator
>> related to maintenance of the specific registries for which they are
>> responsible. At the same time, the Internet Number Community wishes to
>> emphasize the importance of communication and coordination between these
>> communities to ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such
>> communication and coordination would be especially vital should the
>> three communities reach different decisions regarding the identity of
>> the IANA Functions Operator going forward. Efforts to facilitate this
>> communication and coordination should be undertaken by the affected
>> communities via processes distinct from this stewardship transition process.
> Basically, this would be rolling back the harmonized use of 
> the term “IANA Numbering Service Operator” for this one 
> paragraph, but not elsewhere.  I’m happy to do whatever 
> there’s consensus on, but can you explain the rationale, and 
> let me know if anyone else is supporting this change?

I support Andrei;s suggestion.  This paragraph is talking about all the
IANA services, not only the IANA Numbering Services.

--apb (Alan Barrett)

More information about the CRISP mailing list