[Internal-cg] Implementation Action Item Inventory

[Alissa Cooper]

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2015, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> I’ve attached a redlined version with some comments (Dropbox: <https://www.dropbox.com/s/6j6guvdcoyuhmic/ICG%20-%20P art%200%20-%20Implementation%20Items-ALC.docx?dl=0>). Some questions/comments I had:
> [...]
> 
>> * On the PTI items, at least from the IETF point of view, I don’t think the IETF community or the IAB has any plans to be involved in the aspects that you list. That is, the IETF’s position is that if ICANN chooses to subcontract the protocol parameters functions to its affiliate it is free to do so as long as it continues to meet its obligations under the MoU and SLAs. Assuming the numbers community has a similar position (Alan? Paul? or I could dig back through their comments), I think the PTI items belong in category 2.
> 
> The draft SLA/contract between the RIRs and ICANN proposes to allow ICANN to subcontract, but only with permission, and the permission will not unreasonably be witheld.  So, somewhere in the process, the RIRs will have to give ICANN permission to subcontract to PTI.  See <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf> section 15.11.

Thanks. Do you agree then that for the 14 items listed under PTI that those are CWG responsibilities, and the numbers community can choose to have input or not but is not required to be involved in any of them?

Alissa

> 
> --apb (Alan Barrett)