[Internal-cg] Action M6: 19

[Russ Housley]

Patrik:

I think we can be more clear, especially regarding the second sentence.  Also, we should not use the term "IETF PDP."  I suggest:

When ICG investigated comments related to interoperability between the proposals, we found two general trends. The first trend came from people that were against the whole transition, and they pointed out difficulties related to interoperability in general.  They did point out new interoperability concerns caused by the transition. The second trend came people that were concerned that the internal ICANN structure with PTI as a separate entity would make cooperation and collaboration with the numbers and protocol parameters communities harder. Both of these communities have though explicitly said that they will maintain arrangements with ICANN, and are prepared for ICANN to implement with any structure that will maintain the current service level. For example, it is expected that IETF will continue to require (and get) direct relationship with staff at IANA function to participate in the IETF protocol parameter policy setting process regardless of how ICANN is restructured as a result of the CWG proposal.

Russ


On Oct 6, 2015, at 2:47 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> I am working down the list of action points for the chairs...
> 
> M6: 19  Chairs to draft text summarizing comments about compatibility/interoperability for the summary document.
> 
> When ICG investigated comments related to interoperability between the proposals, we found two general trends. The first that comments that pointed out difficulties related to interoperability in general were against the whole transition, and not against interoperability per se. The second that comments pointed out the internal ICANN structure with PTI as a separate entity would make cooperation and collaboration with the numbers and protocol parameters communities harder. Both of these communities have though explicitly said themselves they will have arrangements with ICANN, and how ICANN is implementing the solution is completely up to ICANN. It is for example expected that IETF will continue to require (and get) direct relationship with staff at IANA function to participate in the IETF PDP regardless of how ICANN is restructuring itself due to the result of the CWG work.
> 
> Another issue brought up is related to the IPR related to IANA, which has concluded in interoperable suggestions from the communities, which is described elsewhere.
> 
> In general, comments did point out the proposals are interoperable, in part because they are not dependent on each other except in the cases mentioned above.
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org