Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [Iana-strategy] Ted Lemon's No Record on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 18:04:01 +0300

Hi Ted,

On 9/4/14, 5:54 PM, "Ted Lemon" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Ted Lemon has entered the following ballot position for
>charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-04: No Record
>
>When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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).

There are multiple IANA functions in the NTIA contract, so I think saying
“the IANA function” is ambiguous. Perhaps “this IANA function” would be
more clear.

>
>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

“Transition” is the word that NTIA uses itself to describe the situation,
and my guess is that part of the reason is because it need not imply
completely pulling out of having any role. I think that is less true with
“relinquish” or “give up.”

Alissa

>
>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.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Iana-strategy mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://lists.i1b.org/listinfo.cgi/iana-strategy-i1b.org

---

From: "Ted Lemon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 07:54:08 -0700

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:23:20 -0400

> “the IANA function” is ambiguous. Perhaps “this IANA function” would be

Yup, that makes sense.

> “relinquish” or “give up.”

The text with my proposed modification would be "relinquish its current role" which I think means the same thing as "transition out of its current role."   Transition might be a bit more weasely; I don't think we should encourage that wording, but if you think that for political reasons we can't say "relinquish" or "give up" I guess I'm not going to press the point.

---

From: Milton L Mueller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:33:36 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> > "Transition" is the word that NTIA uses itself to describe the
> > situation, and my guess is that part of the reason is because it need
> > not imply completely pulling out of having any role. I think that is
> > less true with "relinquish" or "give up."
> 
> The text with my proposed modification would be "relinquish its current
> role" which I think means the same thing as "transition out of its current
> role."   Transition might be a bit more weasely; I don't think we should
> encourage that wording, but if you think that for political reasons we can't
> say "relinquish" or "give up" I guess I'm not going to press the point.

It is a political requirement of the transition that the US government relinquish, give up, end its unilateral oversight role. 
It is also a requirement that no other government or intergovernmental organization take over that role. 
Relinquish is the right word.

Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor 
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/