[Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
alissa at cooperw.in
Mon Feb 9 02:19:05 UTC 2015
To me that sounds like a directive, not a question. I think we need to ask whether they are willing.
On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tks I have a small edit as follows :
> If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible,the numbers and protocol parameters communities are invited to reconsider their viewpoint with a view to reconcile them?
> 2015-02-09 3:07 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
> I will send this question to the communities at 6:00 UTC (about 4 hours from now). Please send any last-minute feedback before then.
> The IETF consensus as reflected in draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response did not include a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain as a requirement of its transition proposal. But Section III.A.2 of the RIR proposal says:
> "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.”
> The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them?
> Please either send us your response or let us know that you’ll need more time by February 21, 2015.
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg