[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

[Alan Barrett]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>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.

Yes, those statements are both correct.

> 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.

When you say "IFO" do you mean IANA functions operator in general, 
or are you following the CWGs confusing practice of using "IFO" to 
refer to the IANA naming functions operator?

If you mean the IANA naming functions operator, then indeed the 
numbering community doesn't have much of a role (except perhaps 
for names like in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa).

If you mean the IANA functions operator in general, then I believe 
that the numbers community must have the ability to monitor the 
performance of the numbers part of it.  If ICANN sub-contracts the 
IANA numbers function to PTI (as we expect to happen under the 
combined proposal), then the numbers community needs the aility 
to monitor PTI's performance of the IANA numbers function.  The 
numbers community expects to do that via its review committee and 
the contract ("SLA") between the RIRs and ICANN.

--apb (Alan Barrett)