[cooperation-wg] Any response to the NRO/ASO request to ICANN?

Jim

There's some level of rationale in their letter:

https://www.internetnews.me/2019/12/31/ip-numbers-types-flex-muscles-in-pir-debacle/

I'm not 100% sure why the Board was sucked into this, but they're definitely involved now. 

Regards
 
Michele
 
 
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
 

On 24/01/2020, 09:17, "cooperation-wg on behalf of Jim Reid" <cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

    
    
    > On 24 Jan 2020, at 07:55, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
    > 
    > Over the holidays, the Address Supporting Organization wrote to ICANN, acting as a component of the "Empowered Community". They asked for an inspection of ICANN records relating to the .ORG sale, including board minutes
    
    I’m doubly confused.
    
    Why is the ASO/NRO dabbling in domain name matters when its remit is numbering resources?
    
    It’s also not clear to me why the sale of PIR should be a matter for the ICANN board. But that’s a discussion that probably belongs elsewhere.