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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Dec 12 10:39:59 UTC 2014


Dear Alissa,
Thank you for your reply
I am travelling now as soon as I got back to night will look art your
revised text.
Tks have a nice day
Kavouss

2014-12-12 11:21 GMT+01:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:
>
>   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 <alissa at cooperw.in>
> *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 12:35 AM
> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg at icann.org>
> *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/20141212/70f420e5/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list