Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition
charter-ietf-ianaplan-01

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-04 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -00-04)
No email
send info

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -00-04)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2014-09-03 for -00-04)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -00-04)
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Abstain) Yes

Yes (2014-09-06 for -00-06)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my concerns.

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2014-09-03 for -00-04)
No email
send info
This charter looks very well crafted and responsive to community input.  Thanks to everyone for working on this.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2014-09-04 for -00-04)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-09-04 for -00-04)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -00-04)
No email
send info

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -00-04)
No email
send info

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-09-04 for -00-04)
No email
send info
my biggest concern with all if this is that it actually be timely enough to be useful.

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-09-04 for -00-04)
No email
send info
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.