Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

["Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <[e-mail]>]

To my reading, Richard’s draft response is in line with the scope of 
this WG’s remit.

[Richard proposed:]
> "The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going
> forward, as far as the Protocol Parameters function is concerned.  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. The working group continues to believe that a 
> transition
> away from a US Government role in IANA management and oversight is
> appropriate, but has not reviewed or reached a consensus conclusion 
> about
> the particulars of the ICG proposal not covered in our earlier remarks 
> or
> above."

I do, though, fear it reads a little piecemeal and puzzling.

Addressing the scope question head on, I could suggest:

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.    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
[e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On 25 Aug 2015, at 12:01, Richard Hill wrote:

> Building on John's suggestion below, how about the following:
>
> "The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going
> forward, as far as the Protocol Parameters function is concerned.  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. The working group continues to believe that a 
> transition
> away from a US Government role in IANA management and oversight is
> appropriate, but has not reviewed or reached a consensus conclusion 
> about
> the particulars of the ICG proposal not covered in our earlier remarks 
> or
> above."
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John C
>> Klensin
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 16:59
>> To: Marc Blanchet; Richard Hill
>> Cc: Ianaplan@Ietf. Org; Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat); Eliot Lear;
>> Stephen Farrell
>> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind
>> Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review
>>
>>
>>
>> --On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 08:03 -0400 Marc Blanchet
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> I think this one is too short. We shall support the whole 
>>> initiative.
>>> This was also clear during the interim meeting.
>>
>> Marc,
>>
>> Let me play devil's advocate and take a position somewhat stronger 
>> than
>> Richard's in that role and context.
>>
>> First, I do not understand the basis for "we shall support the
>> whole initiative", nor am I sure what it covers.    Almost
>> certainly "supporting the whole initiative" is not within scope for 
>> the
>> WG, even the interpretation suggested by Andrew (with which I largely
>> agree).  Even if it were within scope, I haven't see a consensus call
>> on this mailing list for "support the whole initiative", nor do the
>> minutes of the interim seen to reflect such a decision that could 
>> then
>> be confirmed on this list.
>>
>> Second, even as someone who would prefer to see the US Government's
>> role in IANA transitioned out of existence, but continuing to speak 
>> as
>> devil's advocate,  I believe that a reasonable person could come away
>> from the three (or four if one counts CWG and CCWG separately as may 
>> be
>> appropriate) reports, the process that led to them, the selection of
>> newly-created (or
>> proposed) bodies, and the likely apportionment of power among them 
>> with
>> the conclusion that, while a transition is appropriate, a transition
>> that leaves all of the decision authority in assorted ICANN entities,
>> subsidiaries, and appointees is not.
>>
>> That could lead to supplementing Richard's proposed, probably over-
>> narrow, statement
>>
>>> "Regarding the draft ICG proposal, 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."
>>
>> with something that could say "The WG continues to believe that a
>> transition away from a US Government role in IANA management and
>> oversight is appropriate, but has not reviewed or reached a consensus
>> conclusion about the particulars of the ICG proposal not covered in 
>> our
>> earlier remarks or above".
>>
>> That would be harder to spin as "we support the whole plan" or "we
>> oppose the whole plan" because it is quite clear that we are not 
>> taking
>> a position.  It could be made even stronger by reference to charter 
>> or
>> scope, etc., but it is not clear to me (even as devil's advocate) 
>> that
>> is necessary.
>>
>> But, if your position, either as co-chair or as an individual in a 
>> way
>> that would prevent you, as co-chair, from fairly considering other
>> points of view, is that "we" necessarily "shall support the whole
>> initiative", then I think we have at least a point on which people 
>> can
>> reasonably disagree or a real problem.
>>
>> best,
>>   john
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan