Paul (and Andrew), On Apr 3, 2014, at 6:42 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Given that "liaison" is a term of art around the IETF, perhaps the >> latter sentence needs to be phrased another way? I'm not sure exactly >> what you have in mind, or I'd suggest something. > > Let me be more blunt than Andrew: an IETF WG cannot work as a "liaison" to > anyone. The IETF has liaisons to ICANN (and bless them for doing that > somewhat thankless task!). ICANN should not expect that any WG would be a > direct point of contact for ICANN work at all. Understood that wordsmithing is needed, and getting the wording right is an important detail, but I think we're even more interested in whether the item should be there at all: should DNSOP, in appropriate collaboration with all relevant parties by whatever mechanism applies, be taking on special names/RFC 6761 issues? thanks, Suzanne _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
