Milton:
-----Original Message-----
goes on to "provide information to the IETF's leadership regarding what the
unresolved issues were, why it is important to resolve them, and how it
might respond to them with supplemental agreements". 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.
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.
Hope this helps,
Jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail