Thanks! Alissa On Feb 20, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Alan Barrett <apb@cequrux.com> wrote:
The numbers community has made the following response to the question asked by the ICG:
----- Forwarded message from Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> -----
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 08:33:57 +0900 From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> To: ianaxfer@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@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@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg