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