[NRO-IANAXFER] What would be helpful when sharing your input

Richard Hill rhill at hill-a.ch
Fri Jan 9 13:54:59 CET 2015


Thank you for this and please see below.

Best,
Richard

> -----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)

Yes,

>
>  * 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
>    reconsidered?

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
provide them.

>
> 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
>        resources;
>    (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
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
>




More information about the ianaxfer mailing list