[Internal-cg] Numbers community response to question from the ICG

Alan Barrett apb at cequrux.com
Fri Feb 20 23:40:03 UTC 2015

The numbers community has made the following response to the
question asked by the ICG:

----- Forwarded message from Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> -----

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 08:33:57 +0900
From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
To: ianaxfer at nro.net
Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Question from the ICG

Dear Alissa and the ICG,

We refer to the question that the ICG asked the numbers community
on 9 Feb 2015

> 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?>

We do not observe incompatibilities between the proposals from the
numbers and protocol parameters communities, for reasons given below.

* It is expectations of the numbers community that the IANA
 trademark and IANA.ORG domain are available for the use
 of IANA Numbering Services in the future, even if the IANA
 Numbering Services Operator is changed from ICANN to some other
 operator, or if different communities choose different IANA
 operators in the future.

* In order to meet that expectation, it is the preference of
 the Internet Number Community that the mark and the name be
 transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering
 Services Operator.

* The numbers community considers the IETF Trust as an acceptable
 option, provided this is supported by the IETF community, and
 the IETF Trust is willing to accept it. This is not the only
 option, and the numbers community is open to consider other
 solutions which work for other affected parties.

This reflects the discussions in the number resources community on this
<ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list archived at:

 Question from the ICG

To summarize: The numbers proposal does not set a "MUST" condition to
transfer the mark and domain to the IETF Trust or to any other specific
entity, and the IETF proposal does not say it will oppose transfer of
the mark and domain to the IETF Trust, so we do not observe any
incompatibilities.  From discussions on the IETF ianaplan group, we
observe subsequent decisions by the IETF ianaplan group and the IETF
further support the position that there is no conflict.

Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani on behalf of the CRISP Team

ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer at nro.net

----- End forwarded message -----

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list