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

Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Thu, 08 January 2015 04:13 UTC

Return-Path: <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
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 AD3911A8852; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 20:13:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ImJvG0Sp2WEi; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 20:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22b.google.com (mail-qa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E34251A8843; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 20:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id v10so801690qac.2; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 20:12:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4RcnUniP87XpS3uqx5vf6hbYvFBQLHWBx6pQDYv7TpM=; b=zikXfwAfAw0uyYlwbINsZlLXyBvIF4oLjW/87AtsqCgZVCv8embGjWuwSwGh0vHeks xogdGJUog4RKi+/fnA3XlOC8ihSSdyyreI74o8vnKpc7kNjOnYIqFf4Fxk3phlMGd9+w EYUBgMPOGIgXAaP71ocGkX6yDX2NqLGqu2H2NOGLCHi5NrpgDlIGBddRsW1ZFw8ST/5M lFRc++auvniFHKM2RLi7cqAqcE/PvQwUhczMR3OnaJBb5UmBRGgJsd9I7i7zqsEXma8k 4CS0cxuHHl5EfDpqHck63VH6R4blgI0V6p2cddXqSJUBy6Y7khFBSPotmSd/kqGwfiW1 ElhQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.38.71 with SMTP id a7mr11612544qae.24.1420690379728; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 20:12:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.38.68 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 20:12:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.38.68 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 20:12:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54AD89D3.7070103@gmail.com>
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>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 05:12:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6hv7WKioXs1Rux_sZ7jWY5v=pZg9PMcrtOvYmoD+R7+3g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2e3726b6e45050c1c411d
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OQmdfhSy0xUa6Vi7jDx9S8rrrnQ
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.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>, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.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 04:13:14 -0000

Sounds like double positive since consensus is a form of agreement.

How about:

"The WG achieved consensus not to include the recommendations."

Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 7 Jan 2015 20:32, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Try "The WG consensus did not agree with including the recommendations."
>
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>