Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01
Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> Sun, 26 October 2014 19:26 UTC
Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C201A03A8 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yWkySBlV29FY for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.infomaniak.ch (smtp4.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:18cc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 564BE1A039B for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.36] (adsl-84-226-188-67.adslplus.ch [84.226.188.67]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9QIwbsT023890; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 20:26:16 +0100
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 20:26:12 +0100
Message-ID: <skdxx44cm2uwv4kmm0kgjon2.1414351572863@email.android.com>
Importance: normal
From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>, "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--_com.android.email_135712933128240"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/b1Lfhd-9K1kgqvbEUb34E0v3BGw
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:26:24 -0000
I agee with Milton, Eliot and Miles. Best Richard Sent from Samsung Mobile. <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> </div><div>Date:26/10/2014 19:57 (GMT+01:00) </div><div>To: ianaplan@ietf.org </div><div>Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01 </div><div> </div>Eliot Lear wrote: > > On 10/26/14, 5:38 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> "To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to >> transition to another operator, IAOC is asked to conclude a >> supplemental agreement that- 1. captures provisions C.7.3 and >> I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the >> NTIA [NTIA-Contract >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01#ref-NTIA-Contract>]; >> and" >> >> Similar to my comment above, I think this should align with the >> other bits about the IAOC, i.e., >> >> "To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to >> transition to another operator, the IAOC is asked to engage with >> the IANA functions operator regarding: 1. maintaining the IANA >> functions operator's obligations established under provisions >> C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between >> ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01#ref-NTIA-Contract>]; >> and >> >> >> I have no problem with the wording change above. >> >> I do. Replacing conclude a supplemental agreement with engage >> with the IANA functions operator regarding replaces very specific >> wording and requirements with very vague and noncommital stuff. I >> dont know what it means to engage with. I dont know what the >> outcome of such an engagement would be. >> >> A compromise version of this wording might read: >> >> To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to >> transition to another operator, IAOC is asked to conclude a >> supplemental agreement that 1. Maintains the IANA functions >> operator's obligations established under provisions C.7.3 and I.61 of >> the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA >> [NTIA-Contract >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01#ref-NTIA-Contract>]; >> and >> >> > > This is what will be in the next version (I had not made the edit). I > missed the Alissa's proposed edit, as it happens (not sure how I > missed it), and apologize for confusion. The issue for me here is > precisely what you describe. However, I would be open to changes to > this text if they can be made in such a way that maintains our > interests with additional flexibility. I believe that would also > address a comment from Jon Peterson. I just don't have the right > wording to do that. > I would also urge more specific and binding language, rather than vague language. Let's make sure this is done before the NTIA contract goes away. 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." Something I've said before, that bears repetition: The final IETF proposal should include IAB, IAOC, considerations, as well those of any other entities that are part of IETF from view of the outside world. How to coordinate that is an open question - clearly that goes beyond the scope of the WG charter. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing list Ianaplan@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
- [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-resp… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… Milton L Mueller
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… Andrei Robachevsky
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… JFC Morfin
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… Jefsey
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… JFC Morfin
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-… JFC Morfin