Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress
- To: Dean Pemberton <dean at internetnz dot net dot nz>
- Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress
- From: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:02:07 +1100
- Cc: "apnic-talk at apnic dot net" <apnic-talk at apnic dot net>
- Delivered-to: apnic-talk at mailman dot apnic dot net
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:x-google-dkim-signature:x-gm-message-state:x-received: mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to: cc:content-type; bh=rrbil7uC5/uGVu+ypHXNM/TR9T6ctwuffJLnOhsj064=; b=0J/N0woIGMk8XAAlSpJYQ/FIa1P3mYZGIIaLEtc1QFZJ2xkY2If8znXuI54MMfFaSzjyaVKcL5pLD +/CV1DeGaM3UTNgZDJ72Mj/y4t4E0AUjcm8CmmOVfLYxlXWyL2GNTwCjekb7sMePWWh0T+8PmZTotL BllWZgy+Wbp2JJoc=
- In-reply-to: <CAHT1SrF8cen=GZ=65PLRXSkY_0FTBk4sPxf2m4u-rvkzUtU49w at mail dot gmail dot com>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: General discussions on APNIC <apnic-talk.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/apnic-talk>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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 Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Dean Pemberton <dean at internetnz dot net dot nz> 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 <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com> wrote:
- 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
so I prefer most last option rather than second last option.
On 14/03/25 15:50, "Dean Pemberton" <dean at internetnz dot net dot nz> wrote:
>> And here is my comment.
>> 1. Regarding current overlay in page 3, don't we need to mention about
>> 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,
>> it is not true)
>> 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
>> 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
>Whats your opinion on those two options? Which would be a better
>model if there was sufficient time to implement either?
>apnic-talk mailing list
>apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
Technical Policy Advisor
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean at internetnz dot net dot nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net