[Internal-cg] Contracting

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Apr 27 15:39:29 UTC 2015


Jari,
Tks
However, the issue of how treat existing MoU was discussed at CWG.
We had  members there.
Whether they raised the issue that you have difficulties with or not , they may wish to comment.
Whether we need to treat the existing MoU as they are or whether we have yo take into account the output of CWG is a matter to be examined.
When I proposed that we would have  been in a better evaluation if the co chairs of CWG were to brief ICG , some radical person opposed to that.
In fact the case under discussion would have been better understood if such a brief  was made,
Kavouss
I understand that IETF wants NO CHANGE to any things that was your  position from the very     

Sent from my iPhone

> On 27 Apr 2015, at 16:38, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:
> 
> Alissa:
> 
> For what it is worth, I think the ICG has been clear already earlier that all feedback to the processes needs to go through the communities. I think it may be helpful to re-iterate this, though. Milton: FYI, I supported your statement on this topic on our previous call that you were unable to attend.
> 
> Also, Kavouss:
> 
>> This is existing practice , Whether the same practice would be valid for transition we need to carefully read the CWG output on hoew these existing MoU are to be treated.
> 
> The CWG output is not related to how the other communities handle their MoUs.
> 
> Jari
> 



More information about the Internal-cg mailing list