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

[Milton L Mueller <[e-mail]>]

> -----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.