[Iana-ipr] Some suggestions from IANAPLAN today

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Apr 8 18:46:33 CEST 2016

Thank you Andrew for the update and helpful to hear feedback from IANAPLAN.
I agree with Alan, both of the two suggestions discussed in IANAPLAN are reasonable. I agree to incorporate them.

I find the suggestion from John Levine to be a good principle and support addressing it as Andrew says, to ensure openness, procedural consistency. It is a good way to clarify that we don't make decisions when one of the Operational Communities are missing - this is important and we have been doing so in practice.


On 2016/04/07 16:15, Alan Barrett wrote:
>> On 6 Apr 2016, at 22:57, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>> As you may know, the IETF is meeting this week, and we had an IANAPLAN
>> meeting to make sure that we've not done anything inconsistent with
>> the previously-established consensus.
>> The support was in general positive.  There are two items that I think
>> we could consider putting in.
> Thanks.  The suggestions below seem sensible.
>> First in the bit about the registration rules for iana.org and
>> friends, the first introduction of "to prohibit updates" or whatever
>> it is, we could add a footnote to make it clear that what we're
>> talking about are status values in the shared registration system --
>> clientUpdateProhibited, clientDeleteProhibited, and
>> clientTransferProhibited.  I think this is just a clarification, and
>> no big deal.
> Yes, this point would benefit from clarification.  In the same clause C.1.b.v, there is also talk about removal of this setting to permit updates, but there is nothing about reinstating this setting after the update.
>> A more substantive suggestion came from John Levine, who suggested
>> that we specify that the CCG needs to publish at its first meeting,
>> and then update from time to time, the quorum rules and other
>> decision-making processes they use.  A suggestion in the room was that
>> the rules be open to the CCG, except that quorum requires not only a
>> majority but some guarantee that at least one appointee from each of
>> the communities must be present for quorum.  I think this is a good
>> principle, because it ensures openness and procedural consistency (no
>> making up rules when a decision is needed).  Does anyone object?  Does
>> it seem reasonable?
> That seems reasonable.
> Alan Barrett
> _______________________________________________
> Iana-ipr mailing list
> Iana-ipr at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr

More information about the Iana-ipr mailing list