[Internal-cg] PTI Slide 2 action items

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Wed Sep 23 16:03:54 UTC 2015


Thanks Alan. I have a question and comment about these proposed questions to the CWG:

> Proposed questions to CWG-Stewardship:
> 
> Q: The CWG-Stewardship proposal uses the terms "IANA Functions Operator" and "IFO" in a way that appears to refer to the operator of the IANA Naming Functions, and not necessarily to the operator of other IANA functions, such as the IANA Numbering Functions or the IANA Protocol Parameters Functions.  Please could you clarify whether or not these terms, in the CWG-Stewardship proposal, are intended to refer only to the names portion of the IANA functions.
> 
> Q: Please could you clarify whether or not the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) applies only to the names portion of the IANA functions.
> 
> Q: Please could you clarify whether or not the IANA Functions Review (IFR) and Special IFR apply only to the names portion of the IANA functions.
> 
> Q: The .ARPA domain is used for special purposes.  Please could you clarify whether or not the .ARPA domain will be included in the CSC and IFR processes.

> Q: Please could you clarify whether or not compliance by ICANN and/or PTI is mandatory when decisions or recommendations are made by an IFR or Special IFR process.

Do we expect the answers to any of the above questions to result in amendments to the text in Part 1? Or are we simply asking for clarification such that we might reflect that clarity appropriately in Part 0? If it’s the former, I think we need to ask the CWG to provide amended text. My personal view is that it is the former for the last two questions only.

Alissa





More information about the Internal-cg mailing list