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

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 07 January 2015 00:01 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 A6EC61A876D; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:01:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 3o9TP6V-GDGu; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:01:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A591A0263; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:01:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9983D2CF23; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 02:01:53 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UyDTLt_wBoUk; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 02:01:44 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4A42CF08; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 02:01:44 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5B12A21A-7963-4AEA-8F78-7D54EC85A4BF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <71cb0c49686f43e6ae84871861bffac6@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 02:01:41 +0200
Message-Id: <13BDD0B3-C87C-4A45-9675-E543650D160A@piuha.net>
References: <21730E2D-5F0B-45AE-A763-6F61F8AF5D1B@piuha.net> <3181B0DB-BBB4-4674-ADF2-3C03B9CDACD4@piuha.net> <71cb0c49686f43e6ae84871861bffac6@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tEPYiSZ0ZJqKBEuW2a2AP0DRjx4
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: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 00:02:00 -0000

Milton:

>> -----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. 

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.

Hope this helps,

Jari