<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">I too would be fine with a multi-step process if that’s needed. <div><br></div><div>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".<div><br></div><div>Russ M</div><div><br><div><div>On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:11 PM, joseph alhadeff <<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
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?<br>
<br>
Joe <br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/8/2015 10:55 PM, Russ Mundy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:A86CA307-9252-43A7-9BC5-67A404B22DF1@tislabs.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<br>
<div>
<div>On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float:
none; display: inline !important;">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?</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Alissa,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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:
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>Russ</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Internal-cg mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>