Re: [Ianaplan] [Iana-strategy] Ted Lemon's No Record on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: (with COMMENT)

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,

On 9/4/14, 5:54 PM, "Ted Lemon" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Ted Lemon has entered the following ballot position for
>charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: No Record
>
>When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>This isn't a strong objection, but I find this text a little unclear:
>  Registries of parameter values for use in IETF protocols are stored
>  and maintainted for the IETF by the Internet Assigned Numbers
>  Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations"
>  section in many RFCs.
>
>  For a number of years, maintenance of the IETF protocol parameters
>  registries has been provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned
>  Names and Numbers (ICANN).
>
>I think it would be clearer if the second paragraph started thusly:
>
>Registries of parameter values for use in IETF protocols are stored
>and maintainted for the IETF by the Internet Assigned Numbers
>Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations"
>section in many RFCs.
>
>  For a number of years, the IANA function has been provided by the
>  Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

There are multiple IANA functions in the NTIA contract, so I think saying
“the IANA function” is ambiguous. Perhaps “this IANA function” would be
more clear.

>
>Otherwise you're repeating information from the first paragraph, and not
>directly describing the connection between IETF and ICANN.   Of course
>any sensible person will make the connection, hence the weakness of this
>objection, but I don't think it's necessary to make the reader do this
>work.
>
>Rather than verbing a noun here with "to transition out of", why not say
>"to relinquish" or "to give up"?
>
>  2014, NTIA announced its intention to transition out of its current

“Transition” is the word that NTIA uses itself to describe the situation,
and my guess is that part of the reason is because it need not imply
completely pulling out of having any role. I think that is less true with
“relinquish” or “give up.”

Alissa

>
>I think this is a worthwhile effort, although I agree with Pete that it
>could fail to work on a process level; I just don't see that as a reason
>not to try.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Iana-strategy mailing list
>[e-mail]
>http://lists.i1b.org/listinfo.cgi/iana-strategy-i1b.org