RE: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response

Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Thu, 08 January 2015 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mueller@syr.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7CC1A89E9; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 04:42:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 upx48poAnYYE; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 04:42:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.syr.edu (smtp2.syr.edu [128.230.18.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E72141A3BA7; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 04:42:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EX13-MBX-01.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-01.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.131]) by smtp2.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t08Cfrt6005598 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 07:41:53 -0500
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-01.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.131) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 07:41:46 -0500
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 07:41:41 -0500
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: RE: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
Thread-Index: AQHQGvQGWP74PJFxMkC+omP5QzPZT5yzTFyAgABpNnCAAIKSgIAA2adAgABtfoCAAMuQgA==
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 12:41:40 +0000
Message-ID: <3cb91119f9954db5becaacf20c62ae53@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <21730E2D-5F0B-45AE-A763-6F61F8AF5D1B@piuha.net> <3181B0DB-BBB4-4674-ADF2-3C03B9CDACD4@piuha.net> <71cb0c49686f43e6ae84871861bffac6@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <13BDD0B3-C87C-4A45-9675-E543650D160A@piuha.net> <672ec77febd64147bafdabea7cd2a608@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <54AD89D3.7070103@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54AD89D3.7070103@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [83.236.215.82]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-01-08_04:2015-01-07,2015-01-08,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1501080117
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NOBx2NdqhDYGj8pvQuHFf7bq3Mc>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org>, "draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response.all@tools.ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 12:42:24 -0000

I would accept "The WG consensus did not agree with including the recommendations in the ICG response but this does not preclude the IAOC from pursuing them."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 2:33 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Jari Arkko
> Cc: Ianaplan@Ietf. Org; internal-cg@icann.org; draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-
> response.all@tools.ietf.org; IETF-Discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-
> ianaplan-icg-response
> 
> Try "
> 
> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> On 08/01/2015 07:05, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>> I am afraid this is incorrect. The WG consensus said that it was not
> >> necessary to specify the exact supplemental agreements to be
> >> negotiated - that this should be left to the IAOC. My understanding
> >> of the document, and my basis for agreeing to rough consensus, was
> >> that the IAOC could pursue these or not, as it saw fit.
> >>
> >> I think we may be trying to say the same thing. The document
> >> discusses what needs to be achieved. The WG's opinion of what is
> >> necessary for the transition. But the WG did not want to put into the
> >> document (a) detailed contractual language as that is an IAOC task or
> >> (b) additional requests beyond the ones listed in the document.
> >> However, the IAOC certainly is in charge of all specific contract language
> already, and will be also in this case.
> >> They will also consider any additional elements that they think will
> >> be useful or needed, as they will always.
> >
> > Great, this is my understanding, too. So you should modify the assessment
> of my comments because they say "The recommendation also states that the
> advocated actions are in line with the current IANAPLAN draft. The IAOC has
> taken this input for consideration. It should be noted that these
> recommendations were discussed as part of the WG deliberations, however.
> The WG consensus did not agree with the recommendations."
> >
> > That's the part that is not correct.
> >
> > The WG consensus was that there should not be detailed contractual
> language in the document, as you say. It did not, however, foreclose or
> negate the suggestions I made for future IAOC requests, it simply said that
> they should not be specified or required by the IANAPlan document. The
> IAOC retains the ability to request them if it thinks it appropriate in the near
> term negotiations.
> >
> > I hope you understand the distinction. It was crucial to achieving rough
> consensus.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ianaplan mailing list
> > Ianaplan@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> >