[Internal-cg] Proposal for final review
Paul Wilson
pwilson at apnic.net
Wed Oct 28 03:02:05 UTC 2015
I can support Milton’s proposed changes.
Currently reviewing the document.
Paul.
On 28 Oct 2015, at 1:43, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> All:
> I went through this document as quickly as I could. It's in great
> shape overall. I made some minor edits to the clean version in the
> attached draft, with tracking turned on. There are a couple of
> substantive changes I propose which I will discuss here:
>
> Para X028 currently says:
>
> "All three communities determined that the global customers and
> partners of the IANA services and their communities of stakeholders
> are presently satisfied with the performance of the IANA functions by
> the IANA department of ICANN. The combined proposal is not expected to
> impact that."
>
> This gives I think the (false) impression that the proposal just keeps
> everything the same and the customers didn't want any change. However,
> all 3 communities also made it clear that they want to be able to
> choose (or continue to choose) a different IFO should the need arise,
> a capability which does _not_ currently exist for numbers and names,
> but which is created by this proposal. Also if the customers wanted no
> change then why did the proposal create PTI?
>
> So on p. 28-9, paragraph 98 I edited the end of paragraph 98 to read:
>
> 98 All three communities determined that the global
> customers and partners of the IANA services, including the gTLD and
> ccTLD registries and their communities of stakeholders; the RIRs; and
> the IETF are presently satisfied with the performance of the IANA
> functions by the IANA department of ICANN. The combined proposal is
> structured such that the PTI will continue to provide the IANA
> functions to its global customers and partners post-transition in
> essentially the same manner as ICANN's IANA department does today. In
> the names community, IANA customers expressed support for a clearer
> separation between ICANN as policy developer and IANA as implementer,
> and the PTI separation accomplishes this. Also, the proposal makes it
> possible for each operational community to choose a different IFO
> should the need arise, a capability which does not currently exist for
> numbers and names. Thus the needs and expectations of the global
> customers and partners should continue to be satisfied after the
> transition.
>
> Also, on p. 30, para 108 implementation list I believe we need to add:
>
> * Transfer of the IANA-related intellectual property and
> domain names to the entity.
>
>
>
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 1:19 PM
> To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Proposal for final review
>
> Please find attached a redlined and clean copy of the proposal
> reflected all changes agreed at the F2F. There are still a few spacing
> and footnote numbering issues to be worked out once the secretariat
> produces the PDF but otherwise this is the version intended for
> publication with our agreed status update announcement on October 29.
>
> If you see any errors in this version, please make them known on the
> mailing list by 23:59 UTC on October 28.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> Dropbox:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhvx3pl8hx2oju0/IANA-transition-proposal-v8.docx?dl=0
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pj6s0igu8s8k4tq/IANA-transition-proposal-v8-clean.docx?dl=0
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list