[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