Subject: [Ianaplan] Ted Lemon's Yes on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ted Lemon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:30:23 -0800

Ted Lemon has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06: Yes

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.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am absolutely delighted by this document.   I think it's a good and
useful read even outside of its intended context, and serves its intended
purpose well.   I would like to personally comment the working group for
producing such a good document so quickly.   I do have one comment:

   This mechanism is global in nature.  The current agreement does not
   specify a jurisdiction.

I am puzzled by the use of the term "global" here.   I would have said
"international."   That said, I actually found Pete's suggested text to
be a huge improvement.   I think the current text is, while not exactly
vague, at least easy to misunderstand, so I would encourage the WG to
consider adopting Pete's version.   I think Pete's longer text
contextualizes the term "global" in a way that requires no further
adjustment.

I am not in love with "we largely are there already" because it's a
difficult idiom.   I'd suggest the following instead:

OLD:
   And we believe we largely are
   there already, although the system can be strengthened further, and
   continuous improvements are being made.
NEW:
   And we believe that this is for the most part the current situation,
   although the system can be strengthened further, and
   continuous improvements are being made.

I am not in love with this turn of phrase:

   We fully understand the need to work together.

This seems to imply that we had to be convinced.   I would rather that we
said something like this:

   We believe that we must continue to work together.

OLD:
   many people
   participate in email discussions that have never attended an IETF
NEW:
   many people
   participate in email discussions who have never attended an IETF

I am happy with this document whether the changes I've suggested above
are adopted or not.   Thanks for the good work!

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 19:26:30 +0100

Hi Ted,

Thank you for your comments.

On 12/16/14, 5:30 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> producing such a good document so quickly.   

I would like to add my thanks to the working group, and to you for your
kind words.

> I do have one comment:
> "international."

This was a deliberate choice.  The language matches that which we have
used with OpenStand.  Also, “international” mechanisms sometimes have
connotations of government-based or treaty organizations.  While I
believe we are an international organization in the more vernacular or
de facto sense, I would suggest that this not be a battle we have with
others with this document.

>    That said, I actually found Pete's suggested text to

Note that this term is used in multiple places.  I have proposed to swap
Pete's text in where he called it out.  That is not where you called it
out.  Still, I hope that when read as a whole you will find that the
context carries from one use to the other.

>    participate in email discussions who have never attended an IETF

Both of the sentences you quote themselves are quoted from a statement
made by the chair of the IAB on behalf of the IAB, that we developed in
consultation with the IETF community.[1] If you don't mind I would
rather leave them as a quote of the original text, although I agree that
the wording could have been better chosen at the time.  However, perhaps
a reference to that statement would be useful to clarify this point.

Regards,

Eliot

[1] http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/4EQ4bnEfE5ZkrPAtSAO2OBZM03k

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:31:02 -0500

> others with this document.

I had a feeling this was deliberate, and your rationale makes sense.

> context carries from one use to the other.

Hm, okay, my mistake.   I tried to think of a better way to express the text I commented on that doesn't refer to nations, and failed, so I think it's best to leave it as is.

> a reference to that statement would be useful to clarify this point.

As I said, I'm fine with the document whether you take my changes or not.   I don't have enough context to be able to sensibly comment on your rationale for using this particular text, so I will butt out.   :)

Thanks again for the hard work on this document!