[NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Jan 10 13:19:32 CET 2015
Well in doing risk management, cost and context should also be put into
consideration; so for me in this context, ensuring no failure of the policy
source is more important than implementation. However the possibility of
relocating implementation source is important.
Unless you are envisaging a gross unrecoverable technical failure resulting
to loss of database Or another extreme situation like a coup on the
management of the operator. Perhaps it's worth evaluating the possible
impact this could cause as a number information are existing in other
databases other than ICANN's
whois from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
>Sent: samedi, 10. janvier 2015 11:38
>To: Richard Hill
>Cc: ianaxfer at nro.net; Izumi Okutani
>Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship
Proposal: Final Call for Comments
>sent from Google nexus 4
>kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>On 10 Jan 2015 10:41, "Richard Hill" <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
> Nevertheless I agree that ICANN's role on number can be comfortably
replaced without >any major issue on stability, I think looking at IANA
function as a whole is where
>risk of stability can be envisaged; It's still much better and neater (?)
> the 3 main functions together.
>From a risk management point of view, the opposite is more likely the
case. If all the IANA functions are operated by a single entity and that
entity fails (for whatever reason), then all of the IANA functions fail at
the same time. Whereas, if each function were operated by a separate
entity, then failure of one entity would not necessarily affect the other
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ianaxfer