Re: [Internetgovtech] draft-iab-iana-framework-02 (was Re: IANA changes

[Olaf Kolkman <[e-mail]>]

Jefsey,

A few comments inline.


On 2 apr. 2014, at 20:00, Jefsey <[e-mail]> wrote:

> At 10:29 02/04/2014, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>> On 2 apr. 2014, at 07:28, Abdussalam Baryun < [e-mail]> wrote:
>> In all honesty, with this document I've have shifted between forward thinking and setting a baseline for discussion, currently the document is more about the latter.
>>> 
>>> I will review the draft and comment here, hope that is related to
>>> list purpose. Thanks.
>> Yes, it is related to the list. Thanks for willing to spend cycles.
> 
> Olaf,
> 
> one of the concern that is alluded to in Abdussalam's mail is the difficulty to understand where (and therefore what) is the action and target, with so many lists.

This is work done within the context of the IAB’s chartered responsibility (RFC2850 section 2.(d), Also see http://www.iab.org/activities/programs/iana-evolution-program/) for the IETF.  Hence an IAB list. I share your concern about the amount of lists. This document may be the IAB’s input to another process/list at some point. Depending on how the process develops.


> The IETF is an ISOC affiliate. ISOC has a list called "IANAxfer". I think we would need to know if one of the options that is investigated is the transfer back/consolidation of the IANA as an ISOC affiliate.

The document does not speak to specific options. Elsewhere (http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2014-2/re-guiding-the-evolution-of-the-iana-protocol-parameter-registries/) we acknowledged:

The administration of the protocol parameter
registry functions by ICANN is working well for the Internet and the
IETF.  We are pleased with the publication and maintenance of the
protocol parameter registries and the coordination of the evaluation of
registration requests through the IANA function provided by ICANN.


> I do not advocate it, but I acknowledge that the ISOC consistency and legitimacy in terms of international trust are probably better than ICANN. 

So noted.

> Also, on a (different?) issue, if you consider the Contributors and Acknowledgemetns list, I do not note any citizen from the countries which have signed the WCIT. 

The Contributors and Acknowledgement section is reflecting who actively contributed to the document, not a political statement, nor does it indicated endorsement. I intend to acknowledge anybody with significant contribution to the content through sending text or informing the discussion. All acknowledgements are on personal title and affiliation nor nationality plays a roll.  


At this moment I do not see any actionable and concrete suggestions with respect to the content of the document, correct?

—Olaf