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

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
>