[Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Alissa,
The discussion at ICG was exactly in the way that I proposed.
I disagree with your wording
Pls read and listen to the discussion
We need to ask them to  coordinate their views  with a view to reconsider
their position aiming to reconcile
Pls do  reconsider your views and  accept  one of the several compromises
 that I made
Regards
Kavouss

2015-02-09 4:18 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:

>  We are asking them whether they “are willing” to reconcile. If they say
> no, my understanding is that we could accept that if we thought it did not
> create any problems. But if it did create problems, we have the authority
> to send it back to them with a request for reconciliation if it would be
> required for a complete and workable proposal.
>
>
>
> It is not like we have the authority to “force” either OC to change their
> proposal in one way or the other, but we can say, “if you want the final
> proposal to fly, and if you want us to submit it, we think it has to be
> reconciled.” If they received such a request from us I assume both OCs
> would be smart enough to take the appropriate action.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 8, 2015 9:19 PM
> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh
> *Cc:* ICG
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
>
>
>
> Hi Kavouss,
>
>
>
> To me that sounds like a directive, not a question. I think we need to ask
> whether they are willing.
>
>
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
> On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>   Alissa
>
> 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?
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150209/2406058a/attachment.html>