Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

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
> don’t know what it means to “engage with.” I don’t 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.

Eliot