<div dir="ltr">My responses below:<div><br></div><div>Greg</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="14bbc435b5e46233__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal">It's all very nice that Milton and Seun and John agree with each other, but I don't think any of us can be the authority on the level of detail required in our proposal -- not me, not Milton, not Seun, not John. Because it's not our opinion
that matters. I'll leave it to our chairs to determine exactly how to proceed, but I think we should seek clarity from the ICG regarding the level of implementation detail they expect in our proposal.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">MM: OK, we will be discussing that in our next ICG meeting.</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>GS: Good, thanks. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal">For instance, is it sufficient to provide the skeleton of an SLA/MoU (as the CRISP team did) or even just a general indication that additional documentation is needed (as the IETF team did)? Or is a fully drafted contract, ready for signature
(or at least negotiation) the only thing that is sufficient? Or something in between (a detailed term sheet)?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">MM: This is a very good example of why we need to be flexible and turn away from any turn-key fantasies. In some cases it will be fine to have a solid implementation
plan, and trust the relevant operational community to take the additional steps. In other cases it may be advisable to have more detail. In some cases we may even need a fully-drafted contract. To specify one or the other of these options rigidly and in advance
is not very wise, in my opinion. If the ICG, or the public comment period on the final proposal, indicate serious gaps in implementation detail that need to be addressed, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>GS: I don't think a turnkey approach is a "fantasy"; however, it's certainly more work. I'm all in favor of flexibility and taking a more granular approach to what level of detail is needed for a given aspect of the plan. I'm happy to do less work rather than more. Our job is big no matter where you define the boundaries. Of course, anything we don't do now will need to be done by this or some other body (an "Implementation Team"?) later.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal">Similarly, if a new group needs to be formed (even if it is just an ICANN working group) is it sufficient to say that a charter will be drafted that will contain at least x, y and z, or is a fully drafted charter needed? Or is it something
in between?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">MM: same comment as above.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal">For the IAP, do we need an actual dispute resolution procedure or just a mention that there will be one?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">MM: For something of that importance I am sure all parties to this proposal process would demand something more than a “mention.”
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal">I keep coming back to one thought, however -- if the CRISP/IETF level of detail is sufficient, and we turn in something with that level of detail, and that's essentially what goes to the NTIA, and the NTIA approves that, there will be mamy
weeks (er even months) of further work needed before the IANA Functions Contract can be terminated and the post-IANA world can begin. Is that really what's intended?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">MM: Intent is not the critical factor here, practicality is. I personally see no problem with withholding termination of the contract for a few months while implementation
details are worked out.</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>GS: Hopefully, intent is based on practicality. I also personally see no problem with a two-phase process, and it would seem (upon review of the other two proposals) that all 3 communities assumed that would be the case. But our personal feelings don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.... </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>
</div></div>