[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All
Two things
1 numbers and protocols decided not to make a contract with PTI and remains acting through  ICCNN
On the other hand PTI is legally and operationally separated from ICANN.
We therefore should not mixed up the case i.e . On the one hand not be part part of PTI and on the other hand exercising the sane authority and rights in monitoring IFO .
One or other.
Regards
Kavouss
  

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Aug 2015, at 15:52, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the clarification Alan.  Is the needed coordination a consensus across the communities?  Its that kind of forward thinking in terms of workability going into the future across scenarios that provides comfort to those not participating in the operational communities or direct customers of the operator.  We need to recall that NTIA's multistakeholder consensus includes the users of the Internet, not just those involved in its technical provision.
> 
> Joe
> 
>> On 8/22/2015 8:14 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
>>> 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)
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org