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

Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Tue, 06 January 2015 21:16 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 4D4EE1A8547; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 13:16:45 -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 xc3KpbymMShC; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 13:16:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.syr.edu (smtp1.syr.edu [128.230.18.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49C181A1BB1; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 13:16:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EX13-MBX-02.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-02.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.132]) by smtp1.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t06LGKCv027670 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:16:20 -0500
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-02.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:16:20 -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; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:16:20 -0500
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
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+omP5QzPZT5yzTFyAgABpNnA=
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 21:16:19 +0000
Message-ID: <71cb0c49686f43e6ae84871861bffac6@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <21730E2D-5F0B-45AE-A763-6F61F8AF5D1B@piuha.net> <3181B0DB-BBB4-4674-ADF2-3C03B9CDACD4@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <3181B0DB-BBB4-4674-ADF2-3C03B9CDACD4@piuha.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [65.46.187.134]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-01-06_08:2015-01-06,2015-01-06,1970-01-01 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-1501060211
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dEo3NV2RvT0O0pk9iXEJG5fQ2HE
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 08:18:46 -0800
Cc: "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: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 21:16:45 -0000

Jari: 

> -----Original Message-----
> goes on to "provide information to the IETF's leadership regarding what the
> unresolved issues were, why it is important to resolve them, and how it
> might respond to them with supplemental agreements". 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.

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.