[NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: First Draft
rhill at hill-a.ch
Sat Dec 20 13:20:53 CET 2014
>From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
>Sent: vendredi, 19. décembre 2014 10:49
>To: Richard Hill
>Cc: Izumi Okutani; ianaxfer at nro.net
>Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: First Draft
>Kindly find inset:
>>On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>>Please see embedded comments below.
>>>- The entire first paragraph of section III should be deleted as it does not
>>> add any more value to the response for that section
>>I disagree. That paragraph provides important context for the subsequent
>> paragraphs, so it should be retained.
>Just to be specific, below is the paragraph text i proposed to be remove:
>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 any significant impact on the continuity of Internet
>number-related IANA services currently provided by ICANN or the ongoing
>community processes for development of policies relating to those services.
> However,it would remove a significant element of oversight from the current system
>So can you tell me how/why the section above is a response to a question asking
> about "Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements"?
It seems to me that the text in question is clearly related to the transition, that is, what happens after the transition. I agree that it is not stricktly speaking a proposal for post-transition arrangements, but it sets the context for the subsequent paragraphs which are indeed proposals for such arrangements.
So I think that it is useful text.
>Section B which asked about existing Oversight and Accountability already
>adequately captures what needs to be said.
As far as I can tell, no part of section B actually says what is said above.
I agree that the text in question could be moved up, to be in section B, but then it would be open to the a similar objection, because it is not an actual description of existing arrangements.
>There is no need to be trying to say "what is" in a section asking for "what next",
I don't read the text in question as saying "what is". I read it as saying "what will be". So it seems to be that it is appropriately included in the section on the transition.
> also not necessary to formerly document the conclusions the statement above
> is trying to make.
That's a different issue. As I said at the beginning of this discussion, I think that the text in question provides valuable contextual information, which explains why the proposed new arrangements make sense.
More information about the ianaxfer