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

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

This is OK for me too, it makes the limits of our approval reasonably clear.

>> 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
>
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>[Attachment type=application/pgp-signature, name=signature.asc]
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-