Dear Dean and Masato San, Thanks for providing many decent recommendations. Especially it is impressive to see the approach of NZ community. All your inputs are well received by APNIC management team and EC members. I believe these inputs will be well considered to take further actions accordingly.
Speaking on my own behalf, the IANA globalization process is critical and rapidly evolving. As the nature of transparency of Internet community, the information I received on IANA globalization process is the same as you got from various sources. As I am not in the ICANN Singapre meeting, perhaps other EC members or APNIC team can provide some update from ICANN. Thanks and Best Regards Kenny Huang On 26 March 2014 06:50, Dean Pemberton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > And here is my comment. > > > > 1. Regarding current overlay in page 3, don't we need to mention about > ASO > > AC/NRO NC > > which is responsible to global policy for IP/AS as part of ICANN? > > (Current figure seems ICANN is handling it by themselves directly, but > > it is not true) > > > > Good point. > > > 2. While I prefer last option in page 9, do we need "NEW ENTITY 1" > > responsible for gTLD policy? > > I agree that it is ideally better to separate gTLD policy and gTLD > > contracts, > > but I don't think it is doable in this timeframe. > > > > It seems more doable in the timeframe than the previous option of > having the NE1 take on a similar policy role for IP/ASNs and ccTLDs as > well. > Whats your opinion on those two options? Which would be a better > model if there was sufficient time to implement either? > > > Regards, > Dean > _______________________________________________ > apnic-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk >
_______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
