[Ianaplan] Ted Lemon's No Record on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: (with COMMENT)

"Ted Lemon" <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 04 September 2014 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6411A1A8906; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 07:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BjUhSzwWtjbB; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 07:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A4591A88FD; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 07:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p6
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20140904145408.26456.51330.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 07:54:08 -0700
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/rrRpMeD3WpkqOFhG9FzaZw53SQE
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 05:16:48 -0700
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, iana-strategy@i1b.org
Subject: [Ianaplan] Ted Lemon's No Record on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 14:54:12 -0000

Ted Lemon has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: No Record

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't a strong objection, but I find this text a little unclear:
  Registries of parameter values for use in IETF protocols are stored
  and maintainted for the IETF by the Internet Assigned Numbers
  Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations"
  section in many RFCs.

  For a number of years, maintenance of the IETF protocol parameters
  registries has been provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned
  Names and Numbers (ICANN).

I think it would be clearer if the second paragraph started thusly:

Registries of parameter values for use in IETF protocols are stored
and maintainted for the IETF by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations"
section in many RFCs.

  For a number of years, the IANA function has been provided by the
  Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Otherwise you're repeating information from the first paragraph, and not
directly describing the connection between IETF and ICANN.   Of course
any sensible person will make the connection, hence the weakness of this
objection, but I don't think it's necessary to make the reader do this
work.

Rather than verbing a noun here with "to transition out of", why not say
"to relinquish" or "to give up"?

  2014, NTIA announced its intention to transition out of its current

I think this is a worthwhile effort, although I agree with Pete that it
could fail to work on a process level; I just don't see that as a reason
not to try.