[NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments
apb at cequrux.com
Sat Jan 10 09:27:20 CET 2015
Thank you very much for your comments. It's good to know that
people are reading the draft carefully.
What follows are my personal opinions, not the official position
of the CRISP Team.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> - Ref: page 9 Last paragraph : May i know why the NRO EC is
> preferred? otherwise i disagree and i would suggest replacing
> NRO EC with ".....RIR community....."
I think this is the part that says "While there are no concrete
needs or plans at this point, the NRO EC may in the future
determine that the IANA functions related to number resources
should be transferred to a different contractor."
The proposed contract will be between the RIRs and ICANN. The NRO
EC is the body that the RIRs use for making collective decisions.
So I think it makes sense to place the NRO EC in the decision
making role about the contract.
I would expect that the various regional communities would tell
the RIRs whether or not they want to keep the contract with ICANN
or to move the contract elsewhere, and the RIRs would tell the NRO
EC. Perhaps it would make sense to say that in the document? Or
perhaps it would make sense to say "the RIRs" instead of "the NRO
EC" may in the future make a decision. I'd like to hear opinions
from others on this point.
> - Ref: Page 10 Last paragraph of III.A.2: While the preference
> is indicated, it is not not indicated what will be acceptable
> incase the other communities don't agree with the preference. I
> will suggest similar statements used to cover the reverse DNS
> delegation also be indicated (although reworded in a manner
> that allows for continued access of the domain and name and not
> necessarily a transfer)
This is the part that says "The transfer of the IANA trademark
and iana.org domain to the IETF Trust will require additional
coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA
functions, namely protocol parameters and names."
I think it's up the the ICG to combine the proposals
from all communities into a combined transition
plan. The ICG charter requires their combined
proposal to "have broad community support" (see
so I expect the ICG to seek confirmation if they are
unable to incorporate all our points.
I don't understand your point about reverse DNS.
> - Ref: page 14 ...*NRO EC* shall establish a Review
> Committee...: May i know why the CRISP still maintained the
> section in bold? after receiving comments indicating that review
> committee be selected with community involvement (for instance
> in a manner used in selecting the NRO NC) Otherwise i disagree
> with that section and suggest replacing NRO EC with "...RIR
I don't know what section is in bold. Please could you give
section numbers, not page numbers, when referring to parts of
the document. I assume you are talking about section III.A.4
"Establishment of a Review Committee".
There was opposition to the idea that the CRISP proposal should
say that the Review Committee should be selected similarly to the
way the NRO NC is selected, so the proposal doesn't go into that
level of detail. Instead, it just says that the members will be
suitably qualified and will be from all RIR regions.
Perhaps it would make sense to add something about each RIR
developing their own mechanism for selecting Review Committee
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the ianaxfer