Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 27, 2014, at 3:57 AM, Richard Hill <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I note that section 3 of RFC 7282 states:
> 
> "The chair of a working group who is about to find that there is only rough
> consensus is going to have to decide that not only has the working group
> taken the objection seriously, but that it has fully examined the
> ramifications of not making a change to accommodate it, and that the outcome
> does not constitute a failure to meet the technical requirements of the
> work. ... A valid justification needs to me [sic] made."
> 
> Therefore, I would request that the co-chairs provide a justification for
> the conclusion that rough consensus has been achieved.

There was one potentially significant concern raised in WG last call that 
was not accommodated - specifically adding a requirement for strengthened 
legal and contractual IANA arrangements for the post-NTIA period. The draft 
does doesn't preclude stronger legal/contractual measures, but it also does 
not note such as a specific requirement for future IANA arrangements.

Adding stronger legal/contractual arrangements as a requirement was discussed 
at length, and it was apparent that accommodating that change in the document 
would actually reduce the level of consensus due to the much higher support 
for the current text as well as concerns that the change would run contrary 
to existing IETF practices for handling of external agreements.

One might argue that the resulting draft does not meet the ICG response 
requirements (i.e. “Description of any legal framework requirements in the 
absence of the NTIA contract” per 'Section V. Transition Implications'), 
but transition implications are only required to be per the viewpoint of
the IETF community, and the proposed text already notes that "No major 
changes are required."

All in all, the determination of rough consensus by the WG chairs seems 
quite appropriate.

/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.