[NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: First Draft
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Dec 20 14:45:16 CET 2014
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
> >-----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
> >and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA functions
> >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
> > 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
> > about "Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability
> 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
Correct hence the reason why i said section B "*already captures* *what
needs to be said*" in relation to current situation.
> 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.
Well at least we both agree on something; that its not ideal for section
III, which will also mean that it does not fit anywhere unless you don't
think section B text is adequate in its current form?
> >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.
I think the text is saying "what if" from a "what is" perspective and non
of the questions asked about that.
> > also not necessary to formerly document the conclusions the statement
> > 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.
Actually it doesn't, the statement if you read it again seem to be saying
the NTIA contract has no value and so there is no need for the proposed
"what next" and at the same time the last sentence of the same paragraph
tries to re-attach value to the NTIA contract to justify "what next"....Its
simply a contradiction. I think the complication can be avoided since it
won't change the meaning of the entire proposal anyway.
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ianaxfer