[Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Fri Dec 12 10:21:23 UTC 2014


Thanks Alissa,

I'm fine with your amendments.
Re the definition of “broad public support” I agree to the plain English reading (“most people and communities that we hear from are in favor”).


Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: Alissa Cooper 
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 12:35 AM
To: Kavouss Arasteh 
Cc: ICG 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call

Hi Kavouss,

I’ve attached a version that addresses some of your comments. For the rest, my responses are below.

In step 2, you asked:
What do we mean by “the differences between the communities and the related IANA functions”?

>From my perspective the communities are different — they operate differently, they document things differently, the IANA functions that they make use of cover different registries, they rely on IANA in different ways (e.g., 1000s of change requests from the IETF per year versus many fewer IP address delegations), etc. So their proposals will reflect these differences.

In step 2, you asked:
What are the basis to make such accountability assessment without receiving output from CWG abnd CCWG?


The proposal from CWG IANA will be part of the basis for the accountability assessment (along with the proposals from the IETF and RIR communities). On the call there was support for relying on the CWG IANA as the voice of the names community, including relying on their choice to leverage the CCWG Accountability work or not.


In step 2, you asked:
Do we mean interoperability since workability has no sense here?

In RFP Section IV we ask the communities to provide the following:
"Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or
operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to established
arrangements."

That is the sense in which we are using the term workability.

In step 3, you said:
The minimum time should not be less that 30 days 


This step is scoped for more than 90 days, so I think this is covered.


In step 4, you said:
I agree with Alissa to repolce “ broad public support” with the language that she suggested which is more clear and stragight forward  


I was not suggesting any changes to language in this section. I was just explaining in email what I think “broad public support” means.


Best,
Alissa




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On Dec 11, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:




  Begin forwarded message:


    From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>

    Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call

    Date: December 11, 2014 at 9:08:00 AM PST

    To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>


    Please find attached my comments 
    Kavouss 
    Pls send it to others as I failed to do that 
    Kavouss 


    2014-12-11 17:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>:


      Language in section 5 now addresses all concerns I have raised.

      The rest of the document now looks reasonable as well. I agree with the new intro, even in the light of my 'ceterum censeo'. ;-)

      Thank you Alissa.

      Daniel 

      _______________________________________________
      Internal-cg mailing list
      Internal-cg at icann.org
      https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg


  <proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc,commented by kavouss.docx> 

  _______________________________________________
  Internal-cg mailing list
  Internal-cg at icann.org
  https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Kavouss,

I’ve attached a version that addresses some of your comments. For the rest, my responses are below.

In step 2, you asked:
What do we mean by “the differences between the communities and the related IANA functions”?

>From my perspective the communities are different — they operate differently, they document things differently, the IANA functions that they make use of cover different registries, they rely on IANA in different ways (e.g., 1000s of change requests from the IETF per year versus many fewer IP address delegations), etc. So their proposals will reflect these differences.

In step 2, you asked:
What are the basis to make such accountability assessment without receiving output from CWG abnd CCWG?

The proposal from CWG IANA will be part of the basis for the accountability assessment (along with the proposals from the IETF and RIR communities). On the call there was support for relying on the CWG IANA as the voice of the names community, including relying on their choice to leverage the CCWG Accountability work or not.

In step 2, you asked:
Do we mean interoperability since workability has no sense here?

In RFP Section IV we ask the communities to provide the following:
"Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or
operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to established
arrangements."

That is the sense in which we are using the term workability.

In step 3, you said:
The minimum time should not be less that 30 days 

This step is scoped for more than 90 days, so I think this is covered.

In step 4, you said:
I agree with Alissa to repolce “ broad public support” with the language that she suggested which is more clear and stragight forward  

I was not suggesting any changes to language in this section. I was just explaining in email what I think “broad public support” means.

Best,
Alissa


On Dec 11, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call
>> Date: December 11, 2014 at 9:08:00 AM PST
>> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
>> 
>> Please find attached my comments
>> Kavouss
>> Pls send it to others as I failed to do that
>> Kavouss 
>> 
>> 2014-12-11 17:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>:
>> 
>> Language in section 5 now addresses all concerns I have raised.
>> 
>> The rest of the document now looks reasonable as well. I agree with the new intro, even in the light of my 'ceterum censeo'. ;-)
>> 
>> Thank you Alissa.
>> 
>> Daniel
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>> 
> <proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc,commented by kavouss.docx>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141212/d8b69168/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list