[NRO-IANAXFER] Status on Comments received

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Sun Jan 4 17:23:34 CET 2015


Hello Seun,


Thank you for following our discussions closely and confirming our status.

> - Accordingly to the editorial version released i noticed the first
> paragraph of section 3 has been removed as suggested. However I also
> noticed it was then placed in section 2. While I agree that section 2 may
> be an ideal place to insert such paragraph may I know if you are
> considering any rewording as I had initially commented that the paragraph
> seem to be a contradiction (English language is not my mother tongue :-) )

As you correctly observed, we moved this paragraph as a part of our
response to the question in Section II B.

If your feedback was pointing out our reponse doesn't correspond to the
question being asked, I believe we fixed this by moving this paragraph
under the related question.

It's helpful to know that you agree Section II may be an ideal place to
insert this paragraph.

Since this is a key description of the current state which leads to our
proposal, we would like to keep this description in our proposal and not
remove it.

I hope this clarifies how we address your comment.


FYR, I quote the relevant question and paragraph in my understanding
just to make sure we are talking about the same part:

"If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, identify
which ones are affected and explain in what way."

"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."


> - I made a suggestion on minor changes on the gPDP, may I also know what
> the crisp has determined about that?


This has been raised for discussions on CRISP Team mailing list but we
haven't made a final decision yet.

I am currently suggesting within CRISP Team that any changes to global
Policies, including gPDP should go through the regular process, based on
open and bottom up manner and consensus in all RIR regions, and not as
CRISP Team proposal to NTIA.

I'll share on this list once we form a position as CRISP Team.


Regards,
Izumi

On 2015/01/03 15:47, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> Hello Izumi,
> 
> As expected, thanks to you and the CRISP team for creating a less
> controversial proposal that only require minor comments from the community.
> ;-). Speaking about minor comments, there are 2 items that I commented
> about which I am yet to read update on:
> 
> - Accordingly to the editorial version released i noticed the first
> paragraph of section 3 has been removed as suggested. However I also
> noticed it was then placed in section 2. While I agree that section 2 may
> be an ideal place to insert such paragraph may I know if you are
> considering any rewording as I had initially commented that the paragraph
> seem to be a contradiction (English language is not my mother tongue :-) )
> 
> - I made a suggestion on minor changes on the gPDP, may I also know what
> the crisp has determined about that?
> 
> Regards
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 30 Dec 2014 06:51, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> FYI. Attached is the current status of the issues recognized and under
>> discussions by CRISP Team. We plan to post this on the NRO website as well.
>>
>> The current list does not reflect comments posted after 26th Dec.
>> However, all issues posted are being brought up to CRISP Team's mailing
>> list for attention to be discussed, including those posted after 27th Dec.
>>
>> If you any of your comments posted before 26th Dec is not reflected on
>> the list, please let us know.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Izumi Okutani
>> CRISP Team
>>
>> On 2014/12/24 1:35, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>> This is very useful way of engaging the community. We look forward to
>>> further information.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the update!
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>>
>>> sent from Google nexus 4
>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>> On 23 Dec 2014 16:46, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you to all who have made comments about the initial draft proposal
>>>> CRISP Team published on 18th Dec.
>>>>
>>>> On the 5th call, CRISP Team had discussions on how we work to consider
>>>> and incorporate comments received.
>>>>
>>>> We are currently working on to capture the different issues raised on
>>>> the mailing list and in the process of considering comments. So far, we
>>>> discussed about IPR issue which I am happy to see discussions are
>>>> continuing on this list.
>>>>
>>>> Once ready, we plan to share a list of issues CRISP Team capture of on
>>>> this mailing list and CRISP Team's status, so that you are able to
>>>> confirm the status of our work regarding your comments.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this clarifies our status on the comments received.
>>>> We very much appreciate all the feedback you have given us.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Izumi Okutani
>>>> CRISP Team Chair
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ianaxfer mailing list
>>>> ianaxfer at nro.net
>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 




More information about the ianaxfer mailing list