[Internal-cg] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG
alissa at cooperw.in
Thu Sep 24 22:05:38 UTC 2015
> Begin forwarded message:
> From: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG
> Date: September 24, 2015 at 3:04:41 PM PDT
> To: ianaxfer at nro.net
> Dear CRISP team,
> Based on comments received during the ICG’s public comment period, the ICG has a number of questions for the CRISP team. We are requesting responses to these questions ideally by 7 October at 23:59 UTC (prior to the ICG’s final call before ICANN 54 on October 8), or by 14 October at 23:59 UTC if the CRISP team requires more time. We realize this is an aggressive timetable, so please keep us informed if you feel you need further time.
> The ICG would like to state explicitly that we do not expect a further ICG public comment period to be necessary on the combined proposal in response to the answers that the CRISP team may provide. While the ICG reserves the right to seek further public comment if we receive extensive amendments from any of the operational communities, we do not expect to do so at this time.
> 1) The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation as needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the Internet. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end up being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and coordination between the operational communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This information exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work, the three operational communities need to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary when changing operator, whether by leveraging existing coordination mechanisms or new ones. Can the numbers operational community provide such a commitment? If so, the ICG intends to reflect that and the commitments of the other communities in Part 0 of the transition proposal.
> 2) Please could you say whether or not the numbers community intends to participate in the CSC and IFR processes proposed by the names community. If the numbers community will participate, then will the participation be limited to the .ARPA domain name, or will it be broader? If the .ARPA domain name is excluded from the CSC and IFR processes, would that affect whether or not the numbers community participates?
> Please let us know if any of our questions require clarification.
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg