<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 31 Oct 2014 20:02, "Richard Hill" <<a href="mailto:rhill@hill-a.ch">rhill@hill-a.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dear Seun,<br>
><br>
> Thank you for this.<br>
><br>
> As you know, my proposal is different in some respects, but I won't repeat it here. I expect that whoever edits or compiles the first draft response to the CWG RPF will take into account all comments and proposals made on this list.<br>
><br>
Yes you are right and I also have made my comments on your proposal too. However I will attempt to also respond to your comment on my proposal.<br>
><br>
> >Actual Proposal:<br>
><br>
> SNIP<br>
><br>
> >- That the administration/allocation of IP resource which is currently solely based<br>
> > on community ratified - consensus based policy be maintained<br>
><br>
> Actually, at present it is the ICANN Board which ratifies the IP address policies.<br>
><br>
I was more of emphasizing the fact that global policies are certified (ratified) by the community (and that's why you find the hyphen to indicate the type of ratification I meant). I was definitely not referring to the board ratification in the message above. Nevertheless, I agree with you that using the word "ratified" in that context can be misleading. So yes the ICANN board ratifies the community developed and certified policy as per the GPDP hence the reason why I have suggested some specific edits on the GPDP which basically ensures that the ultimate authority is still in the hands of the RIR community. What ICANN board is doing will be a procedural thing as the IANA operator. Just like the board of each RIR ratifies their regional policies as the operator of the numbers function in their respective region.</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
I don't see the value-added in that, I would propose that the NRO be the ultimate ratification body.<br>
><br>
Kindly refer to my comment above and then you tell me why NRO should ratify a policy that it developed and also a policy that it will not be it's implementer.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> SNIP<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">> > of the proposed policy reverts to Step 1. If only two of the RIRs accept the case<br>
> > for changes, then the larger number against will supersede and the proposed<br>
> > policy continues to Step 11.<br>
><br>
> My proposal is that the ICANN Board should not have any role regarding IP address policies.<br>
><br>
Please refer to my comment above.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> ><br>
> >That section 13 be updated as written below:<br>
> ><br>
> >13. If the NRO Executive Council (NRO-EC) and the NRO Number council<br>
> > (NRO-NC) indicates that there is agreement from all RIRs, the ASO Address<br>
> > Council may forward a new proposed policy (either reaffirming the previous<br>
> > proposal or a modified proposal) to the ICANN Board. Alternatively, the NRO<br>
> > Executive Council may indicate that the policy proposal shall be reconsidered<br>
> > by the RIRs community, and the proposed policy reverts to Step 1.<br>
><br>
> Same comment as above.<br>
><br>
Same comment as above also.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thanks</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
> SNIP<br>
><br>
</p>