Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Jari, Ted,

I like the text below modulo one issue: the IANAPLAN proposal did not
specify how the IAOC would implement the requested changes (whether
through the SLA or another side agreement).  I would prefer that we
stuck to that approach and not name which agreement the changes go into
(SLA or a one-time supplemental agreement).

Eliot

On 5/28/15 1:41 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> ​Should we not summarize these issues here?​
> Sure. I was lazy to add the text…
>
>>  
>> The update
>> has been drafted and from our perspective could be
>> immediately executed. When executed — and with
>> the NTIA contract with ICANN is voided -- from our
>> perspective the protocol parameter community
>> has completed the stewardship transition.​
>>
>> Would this also work: "Once these SLAs are in place, the transition would be substantially complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination as a final step. “ ?
> Yes - that would be better. Thanks.
>
>> ​I think we may want to highlight this slightly differently.
>>
>> "In addition, the names community has proposed the creation of a 'Post Transition IANA' (PTI).  If the existing agreements between the IETF and ICANN remain in place and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the IETF​ transition would take place as described above.  That is our preference.  If the final details of the PTI plan require further action from the IETF, more work and community agreement would be required.  The timeline for that work cannot be set until the scope is known.”
> This is better too.
>
> Jari
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan