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

Tue Dec 16 18:28:16 UTC 2014

Alissa,
I am sop sorry not replied to your earlier message.
Yes I do.
As far as I am concerned, I have no further comments
Pls proceed ,as appropriate
Kavouss

2014-12-16 18:20 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:
>
> Hi Kavouss,
>
> Are you in agreement with the changes made in response to your comments?
> I’d like to start the consensus call for publication on this document if so.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
> On Dec 12, 2014, at 2:39 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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/20141216/050805cb/attachment-0001.html>