Re: [ispcp] IANA Contract Extended
- To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@xxxxxxxx>, "ispcp@xxxxxxxxx" <ispcp@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ispcp] IANA Contract Extended
- From: MAEMURA Akinori <maem@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:19:27 +0900
- In-reply-to: <55D31537.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-id: ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <55D31537.email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
As the community estimation is after factoring in time for pub-comm, USG
evaluation and implementation of the proposals, the time allowance until Sept
2016 includes the implementation.
The estimation of the time when the implementation is completed was said around
July 2016 in BsAs meeting.
Does it look correct?
On 2015/08/18 20:21, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> "Accordingly, in May we asked the groups developing the transition
> documents how long it would take to finish and implement their
> proposals. After factoring in time for public comment, U.S. Government
> evaluation and implementation of the proposals, the community estimated
> it could take until at least September 2016 to complete this process. In
> response to their feedback, we informed Congress on Friday that we plan
> to extend our IANA contract with ICANN for one year to September 30,
> 2016. Beyond 2016, we have options to extend the contract for up to
> three additional years if needed.
> This one-year extension will provide the community with the time it
> needs to finish its work. The groups are already far along in planning
> the IANA transition and are currently taking comments on their IANA
> transition proposals. As we indicated in a recent Federal Register
> notice, we encourage all interested stakeholders to engage and weigh in
> on the proposals."
> - Extract, NTIA statement, yesterday
> I don't know whether this will be seen simply as time for
> implementation, or whether it gives time to further develop and refine
> the proposals (whether the ICG/IANA transition proposal or the related
> ICANN accountability proposal).
> Any thoughts, anyone?