[Internal-cg] Action items from ICG Face-to-Face Meeting #4, 6-7 February 2015

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Sun Feb 8 15:09:17 UTC 2015

I would say there are two additional reasons:

- In general I think whenever we ask for something from a community we should specify some time frame by which we expect to hear some response, even if that response is “we need more time.” Otherwise it will make it difficult for us to plan our own time.

- It sounded during the F2F as if there is strong support for us to stick to the original time frames as best we can. That means we’re due to start our assessment of the two received proposals together — which includes an evaluation of their compatibility and interoperability -- in a week and complete it in 5 weeks.


On Feb 8, 2015, at 6:49 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:

> On 8.02.15 17:32 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> I think it is important because:
>> 1. We in ICG demonstrate we use the same process for every group
>> 2. We in ICG demonstrate we are moving forward with full speed ahead as much as we can given the two proposals we have
>> Now, the suggestion is as Alissa say that the OC get two weeks to at least say whether they need more time -- which of course would be reasonable to request (and for us to approve) given the current situation.
>> But the exception should be handled like an exception.
>>    Patrik
> Exactly.
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list