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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Dec 12 11:32:47 UTC 2014


Dear All,
I wish to inform you that on the unfounded bureaucratic ground ,people
wishes to avoid or prevent receiving any comments from me on the most
crucial and most fundamental issue of ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG .
However, I continue to comments and do in no way accept that because I am
not the member of that group ( not included in the Thomas Schneider letter
to the chair of that group my sincere volunteer to fully and actively
participate as GAC member from  Asia Pacific which is  the most largest
ICANN geographical region with more than 75 countries or geographical
dependent territories , my volunteer was rejected by the chair and the crew
).
This is not fair nor acceptable
I have asked to be the member  of that Group from July 2014 in multiple
communications to the former GAC Chsair and the Secretary.
We need to encourage those who wish to contribute and not put an obstacle
in using purely bureaucratic element that participants or Lisison can not
actively contribute
Regards
Kavouss

2014-12-12 11:39 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
> 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/20141212/3fb92a8f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list