Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 22 July 2014 08:31 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 57D041A031A for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 SDz482CtTiYv for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:31:57 -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 56BD01A00CF for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.155.135]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6M8VPk3009784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1406017900; x=1406104300; bh=2bVUhoMa+ju5qNRdNQWkINQZWTP/ubSPQlcaXUKEMO8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=fmpBFIiM7uNX4aIzN5/6oI4CaR0BIT9Rka0SBCyX6kaYX59TQmKkbaFPCZOxyZ8Xw Ii6GxGotyxQxqrDDd1MQZuBvghBzbWkrEXb2WBlJ1m6jvUB1hZO6mQcEJ2KeCUeTWs 3KBATl0mlqNwc1iOuJVZbh0HUhZzoFlxRbW2WLiw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1406017900; x=1406104300; i=@elandsys.com; bh=2bVUhoMa+ju5qNRdNQWkINQZWTP/ubSPQlcaXUKEMO8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=M7At9uWTGWndDFsK36pgvyMPPe4s426sZwJ27i+bu4n7Oz56qnzZUVMijNimSXg+V gsq8lQdFoVDskpnSl+DdszcutuWj+1FCJeFDkXRzAWDdacurGvGp3yLjw/6cBhgadB /WODk5Kdu7Gzc+TDdl6hkhuUV7/VcRKZfxrYDQoo=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140721232728.0cc67788@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:20:16 -0700
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6h_o9QNcj4O_6n78U1uDY_24OU1s5NRceUR_Dm97Q1ZdQ@mail.g mail.com>
References: <A193D048-2B67-469A-93BA-C61BB362DA75@vigilsec.com> <53CD1E8A.1060804@acm.org> <CAD_dc6h_o9QNcj4O_6n78U1uDY_24OU1s5NRceUR_Dm97Q1ZdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/50tEVwdp1V8c12i1gsWzUD3SHhQ
Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available
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: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:31:58 -0000

Hi Seun,
At 07:30 21-07-2014, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>This was one the concern i raised within the number community[1]. 
>The thing is the process is trying to be organisaed however the 
>attempt is making possibility of getting diverse contribution more 
>complex and less probable.

The concern in that message was about the process for the various 
numbers communities.  It isn't directly related to the protocol 
parameters registry.  I'll mention that I have previously reviewed 
numbers-related requests in IETF drafts.  Several persons who have 
posted on this thread (and another one) have an interest in 
names.  They didn't mention concerns about the names side.

I took a quick look at the proposed charter.  According to that 
document the coordination group will be acting as a clearinghouse for 
proposals about the various IANA Functions.  There is already some 
discussion in the IETF about the process for the protocol parameter 
Function.  As I am already familiar with the IETF process I did not 
consider it as useful to ask questions about that process at this stage.

One thing that I found odd is why this discussion is taking place on 
this IAB mailing list instead of the venues for the relevant 
communities.  This is where I will get blamed for starting the 
(previous) off-topic thread.

Please note that I do not have any concern about the following.  The 
problem [1] is that the proposed (coordination) charter does not 
provide much information about the process.  From that document:

   "The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving
    a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing
    and preparing supportive or critical comments.  The ICG will then
    review these comments and determine whether modifications are required.
    If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees,
    the proposal will be submitted to NTIA."

If I was able to suggest something I would say:

   (a) Please don't use words such as "reasonable period of time".

   (b) Please don't use words such as "supportive or critical comments".

   (c) Please clarify how the comments will be reviewed.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. I picked the first word that came to my mind.