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

[Brian Trammell <[e-mail]>]

Greetings all,

I have reviewed the -02 revision of the document and tried to skim the high points of the list conversation over the past month. Please consider these WGLC comments.

In my opinion the document is in very good shape and is essentially ready to go; many thanks to the editors and the whole WG for getting this into the shape it's in. I do have one minor editorial / process question, though:

In the first answer to III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements, are the following paragraphs intended to (1) direct IAOC to action or (2) to report to the ICG that IAOC has been directed to certain actions through some other instrument?

>    To address issues raised by the IETF community relating to
>    intellectual property rights, the IAOC is asked to engage the
>    appropriate parties, both inside and outside the IETF, to make clear
>    that data in the protocol parameters registries is in the public
>    domain.
> 
>    To address a desire by the IETF community to have mechanisms that
>    allow for additional dispute resolution between the IETF and the
>    current IANA protocol registries operator, the IAOC is asked to
>    conclude a supplemental agreement regarding jurisdiction and any
>    necessary dispute resolution mechanisms that are mutually acceptable
>    to the parties.
> 
>    To address concerns regarding appropriate contingencies to transition
>    to another operator, the IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental
>    agreement that-
> 
>    1.  maintains the IANA functions operator's obligations established
>        under C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract
>        between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract]; and
> 
>    2.  requires the transfer of any associated marks and identifiers to
>        subsequent operators.
> 

I believe it should be the latter, and that the language should therefore be corrected to "the IAOC has been asked".

Second, I think these paragraphs should be introduced as having been raised within the IANAPLAN WG specifically (correct me if this is not the case), and that they should appear _after_ the subsequent paragraphs in the answer on the principles elaborated by this process -- the message is IMO "it's working, we met and discussed our principles, and while we were considering this RFP we found a few issues, which we are using the processes within our community to fix".

Otherwise, ship it.

Thanks again, all, and cheers,

Brian


On 28 Oct 2014, at 15:42, 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