Dear Marc,

Thank you for this, and please see comments below.

Best,
Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
To: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>; "Jari Arrko" 
<jari.arkko@piuha.net>; "Leslie Daigle (TCE)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step


> Le 2014-11-27 à 03:57, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> a écrit :
>>
>> I note that section 3 of RFC 7282 states:
>>
>> "The chair of a working group who is about to find that there is only 
>> rough
>> consensus is going to have to decide that not only has the working group
>> taken the objection seriously, but that it has fully examined the
>> ramifications of not making a change to accommodate it, and that the 
>> outcome
>> does not constitute a failure to meet the technical requirements of the
>> work. ... A valid justification needs to me [sic] made."
>>
>> Therefore, I would request that the co-chairs provide a justification for
>> the conclusion that rough consensus has been achieved.
>
> While the shepherd writeup is not to justify, the writeup that was 
> recently submitted summarize it.

Indeed.  That writeup appears to me to be a description of what happened, 
not a justification for the decision.

So I would still like to see a justification.

Further, I have some suggestions for the writeup itself, see below.

>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/shepherdwriteup/

I reproduce below the bits of the original for which I am suggesting 
changes, followed by the suggested change.

>There was a broad suggestion that the document should contain either
>much stronger statements of terms acceptable to the IETF, or else
>strong statements instructing the IAOC what terms to negotiate.

This is correct, but I propose to add at the end ", or else to ask that the 
MoU be replaced by a legally binding agreement reflecting the provisions of 
the NTIA-ICANN contract, if, after legal analysis, it was found that the 
current MoU is not a legally binding agreement."

>so it is difficult to know how the WG
>could have produced something incorporating this suggestion, even if
>it had wanted to.

That was a majority view, but there was a minority view.  So I suggest 
adding a new sentence at the end: "At least one participant was of the view 
that the mandate of the WG would have empowered it to produce something 
incorporating this suggestion."

>Two participants were sufficiently unhappy with the resulting draft,
>apparently in part because of the previous two decisions, that they
>requested their names be removed from the Acknowledgements section,
>despite their contributions to the discussion of the draft.

That does not reflect what I said.  For what concerns me, please use this 
text:  "One participant requested that his name be removed from the 
Acknowledgements section, because he was of the view that none of his 
substantive comments were refected in the final draft."

>
> Regards, Marc.
>
>>
>> Thanks and best,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Marc
>>> Blanchet
>>> Sent: mercredi, 26. novembre 2014 19:20
>>> To: ianaplan@ietf.org
>>> Cc: Jari Arrko
>>> Subject: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step
>>>
>>>
>>> Based on the working group last call comments and meeting, the
>>> co-chairs have come to conclusion that the working group have
>>> achieved rough concensus on the latest version of
>>> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response  (i.e. -07).  The shepherd is
>>> entering his writeup. So the co-chairs have asked the AD to move
>>> the document to the next step.
>>>
>>> Regards, Marc&Leslie, co-chairs.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ianaplan mailing list
>>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>>
>
>
>