Subject: [Internetgovtech] Comments on draft-iab-iana-framework-02

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 22:17:29 -0700

Hi Olaf,

I have a few comments on draft-iab-iana-framework-02.

The title of the draft is "A Framework for Describing the Internet 
Assigned Numbers Authority".  The Abstract states that the "document 
provides a framework for describing the management of Internet 
registries managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority".  I 
suggest adjusting the title of the draft to match what the document is about.

Section 1.1 discusses about Internet Registries and 
interoperability.  The examples used are about the IETF parameter 
registries.  Section 1.2 then gets into the background of IANA and 
introduces the three classes (of registries).  The draft then gets 
into a discussion of the framework.  The different roles are 
introduced after that.

Although the document captures the idea (I have seen the matrix) it 
comes out as trying to explaining everything without maintaining the 
flow.  If I was not familiar with the subject I would wonder what the 
document is about.  I suggest considering reorganizing the document 
by starting with the background, introducing the high level idea and 
then getting into the details.

The audience is likely not the IETF.  I suggest not writing from an 
IETF perspective.  I don't see any reason to mention RFC 2119; you 
are already using plain English.

Section 3 lumps accountability and transparency together.  They are 
two different concepts.  For example, it could be said that this 
message is copied to a public mailing list for transparency 
reasons.  It's not like we are accountable towards each 
other.  Transparency is not even mentioned in Section 4.3.  One of 
the definitions of the word "accountability" is the "obligation or 
willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions".

Section 4.2 discusses about delegation.  It is somewhat like the 
reverse of centralization as it allows decision-making to occur 
closer to the problem area.  At the moment I am not sure how to explain this.

In Section 4.4:

   "The (wider) IETF has the authority to create new IETF Protocol
    Parameter registries as described in [RFC6220]."

What is the wider IETF?  The reader only knows the IETF.  I suggest 
keeping it simple, i.e. it's the IETF.

The ICANN bylaws are at 
http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws  In Section 5.2.3:

   "As specified in ICANN's bylaws [ADDREF], the ICANN Board of
   Trustees (BoT) oversees those process to perform the Policy Role."

ICANN is a corporation.  It has a board of directors.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:19:05 +0100

On Friday, April 4, 2014, S Moonesamy wrote:

> provides a framework for describing the management of Internet registries
> managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority".  I suggest adjusting
> the title of the draft to match what the document is about.

I was thinking to adjust the abstract instead, and make more addition
detail framework for all community not only management, this will mean the
draft considers multistakehder.

>  .....

> The audience is likely not the IETF.  I suggest not writing from an IETF
> perspective.  I don't see any reason to mention RFC 2119; you are already
> using plain English.

 This information should be stated, who are the reader, and what background
is needed. I prefer that the draft is written in both perspective, so some
sections are more deep and not simple but some others can be simple for
general reader.

AB