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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 26/08/2015 05:57, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:58 -0400 "Leslie Daigle
> (ThinkingCat)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> FWIW, I agree about "piecemeal and puzzling".  The above
> variation works for me.  For the record, others might as well,
> but this is, AFAICT, best yet.
> 

Agreed. At this point the only alternative that I could see would
be to duck this whole discussion and simply send this and only this:

 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.

   Brian