I would accept "The WG consensus did not agree with including the
recommendations in the ICG response but this does not preclude the IAOC from
pursuing them."
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter
[mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 2:33 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; Jari Arkko
Cc: Ianaplan@Ietf. Org; internal-cg(_at_)icann(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-
response(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-
ianaplan-icg-response
Try "
Regards
Brian
On 08/01/2015 07:05, Milton L Mueller wrote:
-----Original Message-----
I am afraid this is incorrect. The WG consensus said that it was not
necessary to specify the exact supplemental agreements to be
negotiated - that this should be left to the IAOC. My understanding
of the document, and my basis for agreeing to rough consensus, was
that the IAOC could pursue these or not, as it saw fit.
I think we may be trying to say the same thing. The document
discusses what needs to be achieved. The WG's opinion of what is
necessary for the transition. But the WG did not want to put into the
document (a) detailed contractual language as that is an IAOC task or
(b) additional requests beyond the ones listed in the document.
However, the IAOC certainly is in charge of all specific contract language
already, and will be also in this case.
They will also consider any additional elements that they think will
be useful or needed, as they will always.
Great, this is my understanding, too. So you should modify the assessment
of my comments because they say "The recommendation also states that the
advocated actions are in line with the current IANAPLAN draft. The IAOC has
taken this input for consideration. It should be noted that these
recommendations were discussed as part of the WG deliberations, however.
The WG consensus did not agree with the recommendations."
That's the part that is not correct.
The WG consensus was that there should not be detailed contractual
language in the document, as you say. It did not, however, foreclose or
negate the suggestions I made for future IAOC requests, it simply said that
they should not be specified or required by the IANAPlan document. The
IAOC retains the ability to request them if it thinks it appropriate in the
near
term negotiations.
I hope you understand the distinction. It was crucial to achieving rough
consensus.
_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing list
Ianaplan(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan