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

["Richard Hill" <[e-mail]>]

Please see below.

Thanks and best,
Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Curran" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Marc Blanchet" <[e-mail]>ca>; <[e-mail]>rg>; "Jari 
Arkko" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step


> 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.

Yes.  And there was also another concern raised, namely a requirement that a 
legally binding document be developed, if, after legal analysis, it was 
found that the current MoU is not a legally binding document.

>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.

I do appreciate your view (and that of others) that rough consensus was 
achieved, but I would still like to see the co-chairs justification for 
their decision.

>
> /John
>
> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>
>
>
>
>