[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars
Alan Barrett
apb at cequrux.com
Sat Aug 22 12:14:57 UTC 2015
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Joseph Alhadeff wrote:
> Is this a question we should pose to the OCs? If there is a
> need for some cross OC coordination review in the case of the
> replacement of the Operator? This would have been beyond the
> remit of the individual proposal...
The CRISP Team's proposal anticipates that coordination may be needed
if different OCs ever choose different IANA functions operators, and
says that such coordination should be distinct from the stewardship
transition process. I quote from the proposal:
This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e., the number
community, the protocol parameter community, and the name community) will
have independent arrangements with the IANA Functions Operator related to
maintenance of the specific registries for which they are responsible. At
the same time, the Internet Number Community wishes to emphasize the
importance of communication and coordination between these communities to
ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such communication and
coordination would be especially vital should the three communities reach
different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA Functions Operator
after the transition. Efforts to facilitate this communication and
coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities via
processes distinct from this stewardship transition process.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list