[Internal-cg] Q&A matrix update - deadline for comments 05:00 UTC July 30 [was RE: Action 7 of today's call]

[Jennifer Chung]

Hi Russ,

 

Apologies for having missed your earlier edit on the answer to 2.3.

 

Here is the updated version v4-ALC-JC2 that incorporates your requested edit “as part of the implementation phase”.

 

Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1D9Pduf 

Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 4:29 PM
To: 'michael niebel' <fmniebel at gmail.com>; 'Russ Housley' <housley at vigilsec.com>; 'IANA etc etc Coordination Group' <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] Q&A matrix update - deadline for comments 05:00 UTC July 30 [was RE: Action 7 of today's call]

 

Hi Michael and All,

 

Please find the Q&A matrix attached and linked below.

 

Dropbox link to document: http://icgsec.asia/1h5RBYL 

Dropbox link to folder: http://icgsec.asia/1OfxHW2 

 

Per Michael’s request, 2.3 has been changed to his formulation below and 2.5 has been deleted.  

 

Deadline for comments to this document is 05:00 UTC July 30.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jennifer

 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of michael niebel
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 7:49 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org> 
Subject: [Internal-cg] Action 7 of today's call

 

---Point 2.3 of the matrix deals with P3.III. of the Response from Protocol Parameters Registries Community, (Number 3062) and notably "Transition to Success Contractor" C.7.3 and "Continuity of Services" I. 61 of the current IANA functions contract.

 

I find the present formulation of the question not easy to understand and therefore have tried to inject some clarifying elements . Please find below my proposal.

 

2.3

"Is it the preference of the IETF community to replace by a simple acknowledgement the obligations of ICANN established under C7-3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent operators, should the need arise? Given that these obligations are not part of the MoU, is such a light declaration legally sufficient to satisfy the need for stability and continuity ?"

 

----Point 2.5 seems to me already  covered by point 2.3 ., as formulated above. I would see no added value in it and propose to delete it.

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/b91b63d8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary of internally resolved questions-v4-ALC-JC2.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 18393 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150729/b91b63d8/attachment.xlsx>