[Internal-cg] Questions to send - today and tomorrow

[Russ Housley]

Alissa:

> Thanks, Russ. Does that apply to these questions to the CWG as well (which Alan sent yesterday)?
> 
>> 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.

If the responses are as we discussed in Los Angeles, then I would expect statements of clarification without any update to the proposal.  If our prediction is wrong, then it depends on the actual response.

Russ