[Internal-cg] Action M6: 19

[Mueller, Milton L]

Found another one in the next sentence: 

"The second trend came FROM people that were concerned that..."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley at vigilsec.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 12:56 PM
> To: Mueller, Milton L
> Cc: "Patrik Fältström"; ICG
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Action M6: 19
> 
> 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