Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 06:16:15PM +0200, Richard Hill wrote:
> The problem is that by supporting the entire proposal you are also taking a position on the names and addressing proposals. And it seems to me that that goes beyond the mandate of this group.
> 

Just on the "mandate" issue (i.e. without respect to the merits of the
argument Richard is advancing), I want to note that such a position
in my reading _is_ in the charter of the WG:

  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.

and

Goals and Milestones:
  Jan 2015 - complete protocol parameters registries document
  May 2015 - review of other transition proposals, if needed

It's a little late, but IMO this was always part of the work.  The
failure of the whole ICG proposal clearly would affect the IETF and
its registries, so I cannot see a way in which this isn't WG chartered
work.

Best regards,

A (as usual, for myself)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]