ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response

2015-01-07 12:12:40


-----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.