I would accept "The WG consensus did not agree with including the recommendations in the ICG response but this does not preclude the IAOC from pursuing them." > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 2:33 PM > To: Milton L Mueller; Jari Arkko > Cc: Ianaplan@Ietf. Org; internal-cg@xxxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg- > response.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; IETF-Discussion list > Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] last call and IESG processing summary for draft-ietf- > ianaplan-icg-response > > Try " > > Regards > Brian > > On 08/01/2015 07:05, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >>> I am afraid this is incorrect. The WG consensus said that it was not > >> necessary to specify the exact supplemental agreements to be > >> negotiated - that this should be left to the IAOC. My understanding > >> of the document, and my basis for agreeing to rough consensus, was > >> that the IAOC could pursue these or not, as it saw fit. > >> > >> I think we may be trying to say the same thing. The document > >> discusses what needs to be achieved. The WG's opinion of what is > >> necessary for the transition. But the WG did not want to put into the > >> document (a) detailed contractual language as that is an IAOC task or > >> (b) additional requests beyond the ones listed in the document. > >> However, the IAOC certainly is in charge of all specific contract language > already, and will be also in this case. > >> They will also consider any additional elements that they think will > >> be useful or needed, as they will always. > > > > Great, this is my understanding, too. So you should modify the assessment > of my comments because they say "The recommendation also states that the > advocated actions are in line with the current IANAPLAN draft. The IAOC has > taken this input for consideration. It should be noted that these > recommendations were discussed as part of the WG deliberations, however. > The WG consensus did not agree with the recommendations." > > > > That's the part that is not correct. > > > > The WG consensus was that there should not be detailed contractual > language in the document, as you say. It did not, however, foreclose or > negate the suggestions I made for future IAOC requests, it simply said that > they should not be specified or required by the IANAPlan document. The > IAOC retains the ability to request them if it thinks it appropriate in the near > term negotiations. > > > > I hope you understand the distinction. It was crucial to achieving rough > consensus. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ianaplan mailing list > > Ianaplan@xxxxxxxx > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan > >