Yes, what do you being active in the communities say? Patrik
On 7 feb 2015, at 14:46, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Do we want to ask for a response by a particular date?
On Feb 6, 2015, at 10:07 PM, Russ Mundy <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
This question looks good to me and, just to be clear, the same question will be sent to the Number and Protocols OC.
Russ M
On Feb 7, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
Looks fine to me.
Russ
On 07 Feb 2015, at 12:35, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
These changes ok with me.
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 11:30 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Russ Housley; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
I would suggest inclusion of all the relevant text from the RIR proposal in the note, as well as a tweak to the first few words of the first sentence:
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 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 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?
On Feb 6, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
No problem.
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was 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 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." 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?"
From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 9:51 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposed question for the protocols OC
Please change "protocols proposal" to "protocol parameters proposal".
Please change "protocols community" to "protocol parameters community".
Russ
On Feb 6, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Based on feedback from numbers, another slight revision:
“The IETF IANAPLAN WG did not think a formal request to change the arrangements regarding the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain was 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 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." The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers and protocols communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them?"
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg