I don't think the Principal Terms were put out for ICANN Public Comment (though there were brought back to the CWG), so we'll need to be careful in how we phrase that....

Greg

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Jari Arkko jari.arkko@piuha.net wrote:

Thanks, looks good to me as well. The only thing that I wonder is whether the fact that there was earlier work and posting of principal terms should be mentioned. I know from the IETF community side that would probably be helpful context.

Jari

...

On 8.8.2016, at 22.07, Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:

Hi,

Here's a draft note for the solitication of public comments. Have at it

:)

...

A

-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com <draft-pub-comment-solicit.20160808a-dist.txt> _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr

---

Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr

So I would suggest that the more appropriate place to reference the terms would be in the announcements that individual community members send to their communities, rather than in the post on the ICG site. That way, e.g., the note that gets sent to the IETF community could reference messages or threads on the IANAPLAN list to give the context and remind people of when the terms were discussed.

That seems reasonable. Thanks.

Jari

I have updated this to reflect the current agreement titles and to reflect the fact that there is a single license agreement that will be the basis for three agreements after public comments are received.

Looks fine to me, thanks.

Jari