Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition
charter-ietf-ianaplan-01
Yes
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Benoît Claise)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-04 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-09-03 for -00-04)
Unknown
I have reviewed the e-mail thread during the external comment period, and believe that there are no required charter changes. The discussion, in my view at least, talked about ways the working group should operate rather than something that needs to be written in the charter text. Hence I believe this one is ready to go.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Abstain)
Yes
Yes
(2014-09-06 for -00-06)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my concerns.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-09-03 for -00-04)
Unknown
This charter looks very well crafted and responsive to community input. Thanks to everyone for working on this.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-09-04 for -00-04)
Unknown
Overarching? When I look up, I do not see NTIA from here:-) I'd suggest deleting the word - it's not needed and gives the wrong impression IMO.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-09-04 for -00-04)
Unknown
Notwithstanding that "IETF consensus document" normally means "an RFC on which there has been IETF last call and where there is consensus for publication" I feel that The IANAPLAN working group is chartered to produce an IETF consensus document needs to be clarified since it leave ambiguity as to whether an RFC is the intended output. there are three options (pick one!) - "...that will be published as an RFC" - "...that may be published as an RFC" - "...that will be produced as an Internet-Draft and submitted to the ICANN thingy committee when consensus has been reached." --- In view of Joel's comment about timeliness, I wonder whether micro-management through the milestones might be helpful.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-04)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-09-04 for -00-04)
Unknown
my biggest concern with all if this is that it actually be timely enough to be useful.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-09-04 for -00-04)
Unknown
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.