Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Seun Ojedeji <> Fri, 25 September 2015 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ACF31A0302 for <>; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 06:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XR9H1dGfSLpl for <>; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 06:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 280051A01E2 for <>; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 06:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicgb1 with SMTP id gb1so20391446wic.1 for <>; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 06:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=rO6qNvrJGu5LeedGyGlOdzAvn0ANBGSW/7Ff+TrGrsw=; b=l62R2zX8zEW2wCJ2HtDBVyf722Mf3JDoqW0xu/nNsEHG1V19GH2awbQuyGCFQ9UmtR xf8BaocIWh7/2zux18J4AttuQjZogFU5dKYo6nGE437rKn9oHF31Q8p4ktDBTJR3R4Kr c0rL+/4mZQIImyPSbIve8YkOCE75jcjU35cUAP5S/Xeq9yKJTpAhONoLxZZ31LxLj439 8NWbVygcZAj2BKkOMr2EjAsldTHuy0UmQhWYmsKAe83rKj63xXqEw9/frgKo2N0g5Qsg VDnm/+WJN0YF2T5bGZt7Rxz4VAhnZVn77PKJU28/ap6cwZzn4+/BVV57h5zT74Y5b5WT lwLg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id yp10mr7139505wjc.24.1443187398651; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 06:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 25 Sep 2015 06:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Seun Ojedeji <>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 06:22:48 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Russ Housley <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01419af03db4840520924081
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 13:23:23 -0000

Hi Russ, all

While making ability to change operator an independent decision of each
operational communities, and your "simple" comment about continuous
coordination is fine. I think it may be good for other operational
communities to be aware (carried along) when any of the 3 Identifier
communities initiates its/her operator change process and i think it may be
good to have formal commitment to that.

This definitely does not mean views from other operational community would
necessarily have effect in the decision making of the community intending
to change operator.


On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Russ Housley <>; wrote:

> I think that we should respond with a very simple confirmation that we
> plan to continue to coordinate with the other operational communities, but
> that we do not think that formal processes are necessary to do so.  This is
> consistent with the comments that were sent by the IAB to the ICG.  See
> .
> Russ
> On Sep 24, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Based on comments received during the ICG’s public comment period, the ICG
> has a question for the protocol parameters community. We are requesting a
> response to this question 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 protocol parameters community 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 protocol parameters community 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.
> 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 protocol parameters
> 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.
> Please let us know if the question requires clarification.
> Thanks,
> Alissa Cooper on behalf of the ICG
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list


*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
<> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!