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

[Milton L Mueller]

I would accept "The WG consensus did not agree with including the recommendations in the ICG response but this does not preclude the IAOC from pursuing them."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 2:33 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Jari Arkko
> Cc: Ianaplan at Ietf. Org; internal-cg at icann.org; draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-
> response.all at tools.ietf.org; IETF-Discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf-
> ianaplan-icg-response
> 
> Try "
> 
> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> On 08/01/2015 07:05, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ianaplan mailing list
> > Ianaplan at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> >