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

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

> 
> 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