[bylaws-coord] A substantive question on Mission

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 02:32:36PM +0000, John Curran wrote:

> For avoidance of doubt, the Service Level Agreement for IANA Numbering Services is 
> complete and it is the result of a open and transparent process which included multiple 
> public updates and comment periods.  It implements the principles outlined for such 
> an agreement as specified the IANA Stewardship proposal from number community.
> Hopefully that is not one of the documents that you express concern about, but wanted
> to make the status clear to the others on the bylaws coordination list.

I believe that that particular case isn't especially tricky, because I
find it impossible to believe that the number community would now
agree to anything that hadn't been already widely vetted and so on.
So it is one of the agreements that hasn't taken effect yet, but it's
not one where I (at least) worry about the future contents.

At the same time it's still true that it's not an agreement in effect
now.  Indeed, even the IETF's MoU with the last supplemental agreement
-- the one needed to meet the protocol parameters piece of the ICG
proposal -- isn't in effect now, either.  It seems strange to try to
evaluate such a text.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com