[NRO-IANAXFER] What would be helpful when sharing your input
andrew.dul at quark.net
Mon Jan 12 20:36:57 CET 2015
On 1/8/2015 7:44 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> 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, I support the current draft.
Thank you for incorporating my feedback on the 1st draft into the 2nd
draft of the document.
While I lament the limited time frame for discussion of this draft, I
believe the time was well spent. I furthermore believe that it would be
to the advantage of the number resource community to continue this
discussion of the elements of this draft response at the next RIR
meetings. I encourage the RIR staff to take the final draft of the ICG
response and prepare communication documents to summarize and engage
discussion with the members of the RIRs.
I appreciate those who spent the time to read and review the draft. I
would have hoped for more discussion, but the time allowed did not
appear to permit more discussion.
I also agree with the CRISP team's assessment that details of the legal
contract are best to _not_ be included in this RFP response and should
be determined at a later time. I would also like to suggest that the
first instance of the "review committee" as defined in the RFP might be
called to review the initial draft contract between the RIRs and the
IANA contractor. Furthermore, in continuing with the open processes of
the Internet community I would hope that the review committee in their
work of finalizing the initial contract between the RIRs and the IANA
contractor would consult the community on the content of the contract.
I do not believe that the community should or needs to approve the
contract language itself, but input on that process will likely provide
additional value to the Internet community.
More information about the ianaxfer