[DT-F] Thursday

[Alan Greenberg]

Agreed. See my next e-mail to further focus the discussion.

Alan
-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On April 12, 2015 11:01:17 PM EDT, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:
>What Milton says makes sense to me.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-dtf-bounces at icann.org] On
>Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2015 5:01 PM
>To: Alan Greenberg
>Cc: CWG DT-F
>Subject: [DT-F] Thursday
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Since the NTIA will now be "out of the loop", we need to recommend:
>> 
>> - How the authorization function is to be replaces, if at all
>
>Done. By another design team. There will be no authorization function.
>
>> - What other changes do we recommend, if any, to compensate for the 
>> removal of the NTIA authorization
>
>We have already determined that NTIA authorization does nothing that
>needs to be replaced. 
>
>> - What other improvements do we recommend making to address perceived
>
>> weaknesses in the present process (despite the NTIA presence).
>
>Yes. This is something we could do, but not by Thursday unless the
>recommendations are highly generic.
>
>> The NTIA has made it clear that any proposal officially submitted
>must 
>> be ready for implementation - no further design post-acceptance, so
>we 
>> MUST cover these areas before formal submission.
>
>I think it is imperative to have a very clear process in mind for how
>RZ changes are implemented by the end of May. But your statement above
>about the level of implementation is a bit of an overstatement, imho.
>The protocols community proposal left certain things "TBD" and the
>numbers community proposal has not drafted their IANA contract yet. It
>was sufficient, I think, for them to say what the contract would do,
>who would eventually write it, etc. 
>
>> In my mind, we do not have to reach closure on such a proposal, but
>we 
>> should have SOMETHING for the communities to comment on.
>
>I'll roll with "something" but I insist again that Thursday is an
>artificial deadline that is not actually required for the success of
>the overall process. 
>_______________________________________________
>cwg-dtf mailing list
>cwg-dtf at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dtf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150413/9f507a1c/attachment.html>