Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus declared -- IETF IANAPLAN WG input to the ICG request for comments Re: Closing in on consensus (?) Re: Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Mon, 31 August 2015 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3B071B2FFB for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1B_JYqGJmsSf for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38C0C1A1ADF for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oigm66 with SMTP id m66so63954746oig.0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=EqyfiqZHuFloODh3bqfqxtT1okZoK8fii148whLl3pQ=; b=wFc0cKXD7enmZRLbQCblbAKSMTP95PlkTHuoPgUaF2DSHJzynXMV/TYHgpDJepIWBg Z9vECT6UnOUVFE7gy/MtWL+WGHevD/cgMzVrm9xBzZPJpzL6DdicdITRf2eOG4BE3dP3 FdFcqZjHVZvWJsvrJrP2jcNBc28hrrTkBIjP7CmXT76unRq2QKdVwfYV2gXjObljtnyf tkGh4+mseoxPhI7X2O0mC6Xxm32GXeR6oRcUZoqYPuq7hdApuifTMgP9XGIhiv5PdeoG zJ0VfjkAKQpYkmv6/5jQsNWzb8ci6RSi3H/46qXeSrnKmplqx/dZj++3TF4hGsJaBJF+ Lw7A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.54.131 with SMTP id d125mr9154752oia.62.1441045213789; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.35.136 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.35.136 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9CA14F61-40C1-423F-B216-285F7802DDC4@thinkingcat.com>
References: <9CA14F61-40C1-423F-B216-285F7802DDC4@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:20:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6j6Je7+KLchZuxH1o+u9K8BwJwnnbm+=4UqCG4mAihz4g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
To: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cdeee12cb66051e9f7c05
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/IMY8QeDLYAJ4I8zfMfMnVl5EhBM>
Cc: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus declared -- IETF IANAPLAN WG input to the ICG request for comments Re: Closing in on consensus (?) Re: Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 18:20:18 -0000

Hi,

Thanks for the update, this is acceptable and quite general enough ;)

Cheers!

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 31 Aug 2015 14:19, "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>;
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks, all, for the engaged discussion and suggestions to follow up the
> IANAPLAN virtual interim meeting and proposed response to the ICG request
> for comments on the combined IANA transition proposal.  We are declaring
> consensus on the following text (same as I last shared, copied for ease of
> reference):
>
> The IETF IANAPLAN WG has reviewed the draft ICG proposal within the
> context of the WG’s charter (<ref>) — specifically, “Should proposals
> made by other communities regarding the transition of other IANA
> functions affect the IETF protocol parameter registries or the IETF, the
> WG may also review and comment on them.”   The IETF IANAPLAN working
> group continues to believe that a transition away from a US Government
> role in IANA management and oversight is appropriate and confirms
> consensus of its participants that the draft proposal is not perceived
> to pose problems for the Protocol Parameters function or to interfere with
> the development or safe use of IETF standards.    The IETF raised two
> transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.
> We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the
> proposal as well.
>
>
> Leslie.
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 26 Aug 2015, at 12:45, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>>
>> There seems to be some support that this version of text may acceptably
>> address our mandate and scoping.
>>
>> Again (still), if you have any disagreement with it, please share your
>> comment to this list by noon EDT (16h00 UTC) Friday August 28, 2015.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Leslie.
>> P.S.:  Copying and pasting without quoting, to accommodate various mail
>> clients:
>>
>> The IETF IANAPLAN WG has reviewed the draft ICG proposal within the
>> context of the WG’s charter (<ref>) — specifically, “Should proposals
>> made by other communities regarding the transition of other IANA
>> functions affect the IETF protocol parameter registries or the IETF, the
>> WG may also review and comment on them.”   The IETF IANAPLAN working
>> group continues to believe that a transition away from a US Government
>> role in IANA management and oversight is appropriate and confirms
>> consensus of its participants that the draft proposal is not perceived
>> to pose problems for the Protocol Parameters function or to interfere with
>> the development or safe use of IETF standards.    The IETF raised two
>> transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.
>> We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the
>> proposal as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Leslie Daigle
>> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
>> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> On 26 Aug 2015, at 11:26, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> The IETF IANAPLAN WG has reviewed the draft ICG proposal within the
>>>> context of the WG’s charter (<ref>) — specifically, “Should proposals
>>>> made by other communities regarding the transition of other IANA
>>>> functions affect the IETF protocol parameter registries or the IETF, the
>>>> WG may also review and comment on them.”   The IETF IANAPLAN working
>>>> group continues to believe that a transition away from a US Government
>>>> role in IANA management and oversight is appropriate and confirms
>>>> consensus of its participants that the draft proposal is not perceived
>>>> to pose problems for the Protocol Parameters function or to interfere
>>>> with
>>>> the development or safe use of IETF standards.    The IETF raised two
>>>> transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.
>>>> We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the
>>>> proposal as well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This would work for me.
>>>
>>> (We’re trying to find a very fine balance between how well the overall
>>> setup works for us vs. claiming something about the details of parts that
>>> do not affect us. Perhaps understandably, finding the right words is
>>> difficult. But I think this or something along these lines would be
>>> reasonable and accurate.)
>>>
>>> Jari
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ianaplan mailing list
>>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>