On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 08:39:59PM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
- The transition was required to specify how the NTIA would be replaced post-transition. The critical day-to-day issue was of course approval of changes to the RZ, but also operational changes and the systems they use.
review. In my mind, presuming the other operational communities did not invent their own replacement of the NTIA authorization function, this group would address issues related to them as well.
As Milton said, the CWG proposal related to names, not everything IANA is doing. I don't know, and neither does anyone else know, what was in your mind; but I don't believe any other OC was expecting the CWG to come up with new processes for them to follow or be involved in. The very idea that the CWG could or would invent some process to govern the operations of protocol parameters registries flies in the face of the way we developed the ICG proposal. It's not on. Speaking for myself, I think there was not, is not, and will not be in future any utility in a rubber stamp on changes to the operations of IANA protocol parameter registries once the IETF has said what it wants. I feel exactly the same way about number resources registries. The reason I, at least, thought this was important for names is that there seem to be a lot of names policy discussions where people expert in the technical details are not closely engaged in the names community. This was a way to ensure that there was a channel to encourage such engagement. Moreover, the CWG decided to reproduce much more of the existing machinery than the other communities did, because those other communities had a longer history of stewardship and accountability mechanisms, because they'd spent the last 15 years working them out. The names community had to work quickly and so for pragmatic reasons tried to cleave to existing mechanisms.
2. Each of the other communities could set up their own consultative group and authorizer (which could be the group itself).
This is what they've _already done_ in the ICG proposal. There is no special thing that has to happen here. You appear to be attempting to invent a well-needed problem for a solution you have. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com