I believe ICANN is the appropriate body for this work. I wouldn't like to see a fracture of the underlying operational functions of the Internet to be split into not responsible non-contextual bodies.
...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd [email protected] ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Dean Pemberton <[email protected]>wrote: > What do other people think? > Should the policy development (even for global policies) for these > functions be handled by different groups outside of ICANN oversight and > control completely? > > On Wednesday, March 26, 2014, Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dean, >> >> IMO, >> >> - ccTLD >> - gTLD >> - IP address and AS numbers including reverse DNS zone >> >> these three are separated topics and should be governed by different >> organizations in multi stakeholder model. >> This separation is much more important than separation between policies >> and contracts, >> so I prefer most last option rather than second last option. >> >> Rgs, >> Masato Yamanishi >> >> >> >> On 14/03/25 15:50, "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 >> >> >> > > -- > -- > Dean Pemberton > > Technical Policy Advisor > InternetNZ > +64 21 920 363 (mob) > [email protected] > > To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
