Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Just on this point.

On 11/4/14, 7:39 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>
> Related to this, I find the phrase "IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental agreement that ..." weird. Does this mean IAOC has to do this? or that IETF wishes that they try to get that? or what? I have no idea, but one thing I am sure about is that this draft is the wrong place and wrong time to change the relationship between IETF and IAOC. This should be phrased such that it is clear it is within in the normal existing relationship of the IETF and IAOC. 
>
>

We are not changing the relationship in the document.  The point is that
the IAOC is the arm of our organization that makes these sorts of
arrangements.  In this case matters are complicated by the fact that the
responsibility is shared, as per RFC 6220, with the IAB (amongst
others), and we are producing a response document that identifies needs
that should be addressed.  We could simply say that "A supplemental
agreement should be concluded that says," and leave as an inference that
it is in fact the IAOC, but a normal human being might not quite follow
that.

Eliot