Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Oct 2015 22:10, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:45:38PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Perhaps we should ask the IETF of their experience when they tried
updating
their SLA (which was somewhat the outcome of the IANAPLAN) during the transition.
Nothing, yet. We haven't completed. Our understanding is that it is going to be possible, but not yet because it gives people the impression we'd be going ahead without the rest of the transition. Nobody has suggested there's a problem, just that there's a problem now.
SO: This is actually what I wanted an IETFer to highlight and I hope it will also guide CWG as we determine what we want ICANN to commit to.
I'm not sure it's exactly parallel, though, because in the IETF case there are two different agreements: the one between the IETF and ICANN and a different one between ICANN and NTIA.
SO: Sure that's the case with numbers as well. What I just wanted to point out is that no formal commitment should be expected before transition
In the ICANN case, that's
not actually a problem because the PTI doesn't exist at all yet.
SO: Yeah that's right, so noting to commit on since the IFO is yet to emerge. I guess this would have implications on all the OCs SLA/SLE since the new IFO will operate for the triplet and ICANN would still need to do a subcontracting terms for numbers/IETF Cheers!
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship