[Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Feb 9 02:26:56 UTC 2015
ICG needs invite both to reconcile and receive a reconciled response.
What you proposing is to tacitly maintain incompatible requirements for the
I see no problem to invite them to reconcile.
My wording was " with a view to reconcile"
2015-02-09 3:19 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
> Hi Kavouss,
> 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>
> 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 <http://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
>> <http://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