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

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

Agreed. "Cooperation with subsequent operators to minimize confusion"
gives us enough wiggle-room to be able to manage some likely transition
situations. The prior language probably doesn't.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 11/2/14, 7:16 AM, "Bernard Aboba" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I agree as well. 
>
>
>
>> On Nov 1, 2014, at 3:41 AM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
>>wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Alissa's point goes a little beyond my comment on the same
>> text, but having read this, I share her concerns.
>> 
>> S
>> 
>>> On 01/11/14 00:11, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>> I¹d like to pick up on one comment I made in my last review of the
>>> document that did not get sufficiently addressed. It concerns this
>>> text:
>>> 
>>> "To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to
>>> transition to another operator, the IAOC is asked to conclude a
>>> supplemental agreement that- ...
>>> 
>>> 2.  requires the transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to
>>> subsequent operators."
>>> 
>>> My problem with this is that one mark cannot be transferred to two
>>> operators. So if we end up in a situation where there are multiple
>>> IANA operators for different registries, how will it be decided who
>>> gets the existing marks? If I were the current owner of such marks, I
>>> don¹t see how I could agree to this provision without foreclosing the
>>> possibility that there may be multiple simultaneous operators in the
>>> future. This is why I think this requirement should be stated as
>>> requiring ³cooperation with subsequent operators to minimize
>>> confusion" associated with marks and identifiers, or some similar
>>> language that provides a safeguard in the event of transition but
>>> does not mandate specific transfer actions related to marks and
>>> identifiers.
>>> 
>>> I also still find it quite problematic that this section requires the
>>> IAOC to conclude supplemental agreements, instead of maintaining the
>>> existing relationship that the IETF has with the IAOC wherein it is
>>> the IAOC¹s responsibility to determine the format in which is carries
>>> out its responsibilities on behalf of the IETF.
>>> 
>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>> On Oct 28, 2014, at 7:42 AM, Marc Blanchet
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hello, given the proposed timeline agreed during our last interim
>>>> meeting and based on that the outstanding issues should have been
>>>> addressed in the -02 version, this message starts a working group
>>>> last call on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.  This working
>>>> group last call will end november 11, 23h59 UTC. Given that our
>>>> meeting is scheduled on november 10th, it would be useful if people
>>>> send their comments prior to the meeting so they can be addressed
>>>> or discussed before or during the meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> Draft:
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.txt
>>>> 
>>>> Please send comments to the list.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards, Marc&Leslie, co-chairs.
>>>> _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
>>>> list [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
>>> list [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan