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

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Mon Feb 23 16:32:08 UTC 2015


On Feb 20, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:

> 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
> <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-February/000397.html>:
>> 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
> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-February/subject.html
> 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
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list