Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval without external review?"
Apologies for the (likely) updates, formatting is hard...
The purpose of GROW is to consider the operational problems associated with the Internet Protocol (IP) global routing systems, including but not limited to default-free zone routing table growth, effects of the interactions between interior and exterior routing protocols, the effect of address allocation policies, or practices on the global routing system. [...] I'm not sure what the last bit is trying to say. What "practices" are it that might have an effect on the global routing system? Is "on the global routing system" supposed to apply to the entire list or just the last item? Also, nit: "including but not limited to" should introduce a list that ends with "and" (currently "or" is used). Where appropriate, GROW documents the operational aspects of What or who determines when it is "appropriate"? SIDR operations related work will occur in SIDROPS nit: end the sentence with a full stop, please. GROW will also advise various working groups, mainly IDR and SIDROPS, with respect to whether they are addressing the relevant operational and routing security requirements of Internet-connected networks, and, where appropriate, suggest course corrections. Martin D's point about one-directional advice feels poignant; a different phrasing than "course corrections" might help, like "areas where improvement would have significant impact". (Also, same comment about "where appropriate" as above.) Provide documentation to assist in preventing malpractice in the global routing system. Do you have examples in mind of what might be documented that is not a best practice or an operational aspect (the previous two items)? The proposed milestones mention "evolving documents"; is there a reference where those are discussed?
I support Magnus's BLOCK. This charter appears to envision one-way communication from GROW to other WGs on the work they need to do. Is there no output of this WG that deserves some consultation with the routing area?
Any milestones to suggest regarding the non-"stewardship" deliverables?
Are there milestones related to this WG?
Two editorial things: GROW will also advise various working groups, mainly IDR and SIDROPS, with respect to whether it is addressing the relevant operational and routing security requirements of Internet-connected networks, and where appropriate, suggest course corrections. The antecedent to "it" appears to be "GROW", but I think it's supposed to refer to those various working groups. Maybe "it" should be "they"? (Also, super-nit, there should be an additional comma before "where appropriate".) And there appears to be some bad punctuation problems in the "goals" paragraph -- missing periods, at least.
Removing my block as I step down. I assume that the responsible AD will update the charter prior to external review.