[CCWG-ACCT] Responses to Rafael's Questions

[Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams]

Andrew,

I wish to point out that several individuals, myself included, have offered
advice on v4 and v6 allocation policy issues, and as constitutent regional
allocation institutions chose to incorporate an NRO and memorandize their
relationship with the Board through the ASO, it is, in theory, and practice,
possible for the Board to take, or relay, an interest in the routing and
addressing infrastructures. Similarly, were the naming infrastructure to
be of incidental interest to one or more members of the ASO, no structural
barriers exist to preclude members of the ASO from articulating (a better
choice of words than "interfere", in my opinion) that interest.

Assuming that "IP" might mean protocol parameters, please accept this small
reminder that getting GOST into the suite of mechanisms which might sign a
zone was an issue that concerned GNSO, ccNSO, and GAC members.


Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon

> > Probably we may also have advice on IPs.
> 
> Is that "Internet protocols" or "intellectual properties"?  I hope
> it's the latter, since if the board starts trying to interfere with
> the former (regardless of what the GAC says) we're going to have other
> problems.