[CWG-Stewardship] Communication with numbers and protocol parameters groups

[Krishna Seeburn]

Thats what i thought as well. It may be more distraction than anythin else.

I would argue rightly we get things rolling and then if required we can cut across.

Kris Seeburn
skype: kris_seeburn30
Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn

> On Oct 16, 2014, at 10:57 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> Actually I don’t think it would be anything but a distraction at this point. What this group needs to do is develop a proposal based on the ICG RFP. I am conversant with what is happening in the protocol parameters community and could liaise with them, but it is hard for me to see how a ‘horizontal channel’ to that would help you develop a proposal. Of course, if, during the development of a proposal, specific questions arise about its compatibility with the protocol parameters IANA or the numbers IANA, then we can reach out to them. But for now, you just need to develop a proposal regarding the DNS root and the end of NTIA’s role in overseeing that.
>  
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:33 AM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Communication with numbers and protocol parameters groups
>  
> All:
> 
> Are there people in this group who are in a position to liaise with, coordinate with and/or provide information to and from the other two groups preparing responses for their respective communities?
> 
> I think opening a "horizontal" channel would be most helpful in our work.
> 
> Greg Shatan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141016/0dc84e51/attachment.html>