[Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment
alissa at cooperw.in
Wed Feb 18 01:21:08 UTC 2015
I agree that we will need to do the Step 2 assessment again when we receive the names proposal. But the idea is to do it now for the two proposals we have already received so as to expedite the overall process, and then when we do it a second time we will have less ground to cover. Both of the timeline proposals we have under consideration incorporate this optimization.
On Feb 17, 2015, at 3:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Alissa,
> I hope every thing is ok with you.
> I do not think that we could proceed with B) and C) in a complete manner due to the fact that all three proposals in an integrated and consolidated fashion need to satisfy these requirements.
> In view of the late arrival of naming proposal we could make partial assessments of numbers and protocol.
> However, we need ti review those assessments once reply from names arrived .
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 16 Feb 2015, at 18:49, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Given the sense at our face-to-face meeting that folks wanted to proceed with our assessment of the protocol parameters and numbers proposals while we await the names proposal, I’d like to start a discussion about getting that going. Step 2 of our proposal finalization process <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf> involves assessing the proposals together for the following:
>>> A. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the proposals work together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatability appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable manner?
>>> B. Accountability: Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal?
>>> C. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the component proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?
>> We seem to have already tackled (A) during our individual assessment phase. Other than awaiting the responses from the IETF and RIR communities to the IPR question we asked them and the clarifications/summaries that individual ICG members agreed to provide after the F2F, do people feel that there is any outstanding work to be done to complete (A) for the two proposals received?
>> For (B) and (C), I would suggest that we make these an agenda item on an upcoming call (either the next one or the one after it - Patrik is working on the scheduling), and that people think about these items and share their thoughts about them on the list in the meantime. Does anyone think we should proceed differently?
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg