[Internal-cg] Action M6: 19

[Mueller, Milton L]

Did you mean to say : "They did NOT point out new interoperability concerns..." ?

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org