[NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: First Draft

Richard Hill rhill at hill-a.ch
Sat Dec 20 13:20:53 CET 2014


>-----Original Message-----
>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
>
>Hello Richard,
>
>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.

SNIP




More information about the ianaxfer mailing list