<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Milton, thanks for the comments, etc.<br>
<br>
I don't have any misconception on this matter. I am just raising a
concern I see when it comes to moving to another IFO and how such a
change would occur and whether there is a need to coordinate such a
change to mitigate any issues related to continuity and stability -
that's all. If we believe that this is not the case nor necessary
then fine we can delete.<br>
<br>
<u>Others should review/edit the comments and see if they can be
supported as an NCSG input - we don't much time - THANKS!</u><br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/3/2015 9:14 PM, Mueller, Milton L
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DM2PR07MB589D9569FF6195698BCE957AC680@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I went over it. Made some additions, fleshed out a few things.
But we do have a serious disagreement. Whoever wrote the initial draft is laboring under the misconception that any change in IANA function operators must be coordinated across all three operational communities. This is just not true. The plan (and at least 2 of the 3 OCs involved) assumes that each OC has the ability to select a new IANA functions operator independently for its own part of the functions. None of the numbers and protocols people have expressed any concern about the compatibility implications of doing that. It seems to be only names people who are worried about that.
I would object to all of that language but before deleting it wanted to flag this issue on the list for discussion.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>] On Behalf
Of Matthew Shears
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 10:11 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [Consultation] Important NCSG draft comment
on ICG IANA stewardship proposal
Thanks Rafik - this is very "drafty" so please consider it a strawman.
Matthew
On 9/3/2015 2:47 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi everyone,
Thanks to Matt, we got a NCSG draft comment for the ICG proposal and
we should submit this asap (the deadline for submission is 8th Sept).
the document is here
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/14wO_tu">https://docs.google.com/document/d/14wO_tu</a>-
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">liqEqzlMSm_NnGD4_BME7f7Fhg_
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Z7d1lwYBc/edit please review it and share your comments. the document
is in suggestion mode to make the review and input more easier.
For reminder, Milton is our representative in the ICG.
Best Regards,
Rafik
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987</pre>
</body>
</html>