[Internal-cg] Action M6: 19

[Russ Housley]

Yes.  Thanks for the catch.


On Oct 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

> 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