[NRO-IANAXFER] What would be helpful when sharing your input
rhill at hill-a.ch
Fri Jan 9 13:54:59 CET 2015
Thank you for this and please see below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net
> [mailto:ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net]On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani
> Sent: vendredi, 9. janvier 2015 04:45
> To: ianaxfer at nro.net
> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] What would be helpful when sharing your input
> Dear Colleagues,
> Thank you for those who have shared your input to the our second draft
> proposal already. I very much appreciate your attention to this and to
> have provided your comments early. This is helpful for our consideration.
> As you are aware, the timeline for the next step in developing the final
> proposal to the ICG is very short and we would like to be as effective
> as possible in considering your inputs.
> For your reference, following are a few points which would be helpful
> when sharing your input, for the CRISP Team to understand your position
> adequately and effectively during this short period.
> * Do you generally support the concept of each of the proposed
> elements listed in Section III A (1)-(4) (*)
> (While you may have additional inputs about some details)
> * If you are sharing an opinion which are contrary to discussions
> which had been taking place on the <ianaxfer at nro.net> list with no
> further objections expressed or CRISP Team has formed a position,
> do you feel strong enough to reconsider? If so, what are the
> implications you are concerned about in case this point was not
My main concern is that the proposed contract should be annexed to the
proposal. Note that, in my opinion, this will not require a great deal of
work. The new contract is basically the existing MoU with some extra
clauses and some clarifications. I would imagine that it would take a few
hours to produce a first draft of the new contract.
> * If you are stating a strong preference to a certain direction of an
> issue, what is the reason? If it is not incorporated, what are the
> consequences you are concerned about?
I think that I have already explained the reasons for my suggestions. If
additional explanations are needed, please let me know and I will try to
> If you are raising a point, which you don't feel strongly but
> raising for the consideration, it would be a helpful reference if you
> could clearly state this when making your comment, as several people
> have already done on this mailing list.
> Expressing support for our proposal is as equally helpful as raising the
> points you wish to be considered, which again, as some of you have
> already done.
> Thank you again for your attention to our proposal, and we continue to
> welcome your feedback.
> (*) Proposed elements listed in Section III
> (1) ICANN to continue as the IANA functions operator on number
> (2) Intellectual property rights (IPR) related to the provision of
> the IANA services stay with the community;
> (3) Service level agreement with the IANA functions operator on
> number resources; and
> (4) Establishment of a Review Committee, with representatives from
> each RIR, to advise the NRO EC on the review of the IANA
> functions operator’s performance and meeting of identified
> service levels.
> Best Regards,
> Izumi Okutani
> The CRISP Team
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
More information about the ianaxfer