Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Miles,
>
> On 10/26/14, 7:57 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> Also, note that, as far as the process is concerned - IAOC and IETF
>> are the same entity (IAOC is the entity that reflects IETF when it
>> comes to contracts).  Language like "the IAOC is asked" is cumbersome,
>> since for legal and contractual purposes, that's the IETF asking the
>> IETF to do something.  It's more accurate to say that "the IETF
>> proposes that, before a transition occurs, that supplemental
>> agreements be put in place.... with the IOAC acting as the legal and
>> contracting representative of the IETF."
>>
> What we are writing right now is a proposal, not contract language.  We
> are expressing both our desire and our intent.  As you point out, the
> IAOC would handle the specific language.
>

IMHO:
- proposals are usually couched in contractual language, particularly when
- the subject is one of governance and contracts

Re. IAOC - since it really is one and the same as IETF (from an outside 
perspective) - how will IAOC considerations be merged with the proposal 
that comes out of the WG?  Somehow, separate proposals from IAOC, IAB, 
and IETF don't seem to be in the spirit of what's being asked for.

Cheers,

Miles


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra