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

Sweeting, John john.sweeting at twcable.com
Mon Jan 12 20:55:48 CET 2015


Thank you for your input Andrew, the CRISP team will certainly discuss
your points.



On 1/12/15, 2:36 PM, "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:

>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.
>
>Andrew
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ianaxfer mailing list
>ianaxfer at nro.net
>https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.



More information about the ianaxfer mailing list