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

Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Wed, 07 January 2015 18:12 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 9941A1A1A20; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:12:06 -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 Pc-slkvc2rUb; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:11:56 -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 51D161A1A9A; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:05:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EX13-MBX-09.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-09.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.140]) by smtp1.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t07I5RMg023900 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:05:27 -0500
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-09.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:05:26 -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; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:05:26 -0500
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: 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+omP5QzPZT5yzTFyAgABpNnCAAIKSgIAA2adA
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 18:05:26 +0000
Message-ID: <672ec77febd64147bafdabea7cd2a608@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>
In-Reply-To: <13BDD0B3-C87C-4A45-9675-E543650D160A@piuha.net>
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="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=2015-01-07_08:2015-01-07,2015-01-07,1970-01-01 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-1501070188
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wZR8Wd3gDlzO5G2ku4dsF6SWpjc
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 18:12:10 -0000


> -----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.