[Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Mon Feb 9 05:16:34 UTC 2015
Would also be fine with "potential incompatability"...
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
From: Russ Mundy [mundy at tislabs.com]
Received: Monday, 09 Feb 2015, 12:52PM
To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com]
CC: Russ Mundy [mundy at tislabs.com]; internal-cg at icann.org [internal-cg at icann.org]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
I too would be fine with a multi-step process if that’s needed.
One of the reasons I used the term “incompatibility” in my proposed alternative wording is based on what our charter says we’re supposed to be doing - I’m not really certain what the difference is between “inconsistency” and “incompatibility” but our charter uses “compatibility" but does not include the term “consistency".
On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:11 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> I would agree with Milton's observation. We are currently observing an inconsistency, not necessarily an incompatibility. If they wish to resolve the inconsistency, then there is no need to get to the question of incompatibility. An absolute incompatibility would be if one wanted a transfer of IP and the other opposed a transfer. Both seem to be happy with the transfer with a question of when it should occur. Would there be a concern in the IETF if the transfer occurs early?
> On 2/8/2015 10:55 PM, Russ Mundy wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>> The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them?
>> Thanks for pulling the discussion together. I wouldn't object to the current wording of the question but think that the "question" paragraph could be a bit clearer so let me suggest the following para replace above:
>> The ICG perceives that the protocol parameters and numbers proposals are incompatible on this point, i.e., the numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. Would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them or describe how the current proposals are compatible?
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg