[Internetgovtech] Comments on draft-iab-iana-framework-02

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 04 April 2014 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730601A02F9 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Gsl1Mc_qvFOo for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B021A02AE for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.151.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3468M8d007133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1396591717; bh=gs6Fc0v0BpA7k7lZQBJDPtahjBZ8uTDdSz78QcHa1MI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=Mq1oK1mTFoWgPzoCm3q1+0hzS56Zkx9Ohoc2vzSK6t17E1MlkHzSS1N3VUZBWTsG1 /MJgCjWMtH93fM0atPT1d2gsDMJinigbs05CpTOqD1r1MMCOkzgkGOeVqYXlIVgh57 7El2hhVnVJem/WDcqD+mENGL5cX2WF2HGhsvV9c4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1396591717; i=@elandsys.com; bh=gs6Fc0v0BpA7k7lZQBJDPtahjBZ8uTDdSz78QcHa1MI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=W51+mBnzk5SxnFeGIvAZ2jv+HCIu50DQ9epwfqk194lGM2sHkUZrFG2jLk8+0osUC XwOtIR/oLXuTfagCNllPNLidhQrHajFdER4+sQcmWZ96kvBGPqrr45ahJHmItuLu8t IHOtgdnbt0+A624PaUioP1YX63pK8bFNJ1CaLI9A=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403203035.0d788240@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 22:17:29 -0700
To: Olaf Kolkman <olaf@nlnetlabs.nl>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/2N4_qildcqL5_-CDLmU0qNOikeE
Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org
Subject: [Internetgovtech] Comments on draft-iab-iana-framework-02
X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <internetgovtech.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/>
List-Post: <mailto:internetgovtech@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 06:08:48 -0000

Hi Olaf,

I have a few comments on draft-iab-iana-framework-02.

The title of the draft is "A Framework for Describing the Internet 
Assigned Numbers Authority".  The Abstract states that the "document 
provides a framework for describing the management of Internet 
registries managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority".  I 
suggest adjusting the title of the draft to match what the document is about.

Section 1.1 discusses about Internet Registries and 
interoperability.  The examples used are about the IETF parameter 
registries.  Section 1.2 then gets into the background of IANA and 
introduces the three classes (of registries).  The draft then gets 
into a discussion of the framework.  The different roles are 
introduced after that.

Although the document captures the idea (I have seen the matrix) it 
comes out as trying to explaining everything without maintaining the 
flow.  If I was not familiar with the subject I would wonder what the 
document is about.  I suggest considering reorganizing the document 
by starting with the background, introducing the high level idea and 
then getting into the details.

The audience is likely not the IETF.  I suggest not writing from an 
IETF perspective.  I don't see any reason to mention RFC 2119; you 
are already using plain English.

Section 3 lumps accountability and transparency together.  They are 
two different concepts.  For example, it could be said that this 
message is copied to a public mailing list for transparency 
reasons.  It's not like we are accountable towards each 
other.  Transparency is not even mentioned in Section 4.3.  One of 
the definitions of the word "accountability" is the "obligation or 
willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions".

Section 4.2 discusses about delegation.  It is somewhat like the 
reverse of centralization as it allows decision-making to occur 
closer to the problem area.  At the moment I am not sure how to explain this.

In Section 4.4:

   "The (wider) IETF has the authority to create new IETF Protocol
    Parameter registries as described in [RFC6220]."

What is the wider IETF?  The reader only knows the IETF.  I suggest 
keeping it simple, i.e. it's the IETF.

The ICANN bylaws are at 
http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws  In Section 5.2.3:

   "As specified in ICANN's bylaws [ADDREF], the ICANN Board of
   Trustees (BoT) oversees those process to perform the Policy Role."

ICANN is a corporation.  It has a board of directors.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy