[Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment

Lynn St.Amour Lynn at lstamour.org
Wed Feb 18 01:57:19 UTC 2015

Hi Alissa,

I also think it appropriate for us to begin considering parts B and C.  And I concur that we have completed step A.


On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Alissa:
> You have provided a good framework for continuing work on the proposals.
> I agree that we have completed step A (compatibility and interop) for the numbers and protocols proposals.
> IETF’s IANAPLAN WG seems to have come very close to a consensus that “the IETF Trust [is] an acceptable candidate for holding the trademark and domain” and that “The IETF would support a decision by the IETF Trust to hold the IANA mark, and iana.org domain in behalf of the Internet community” so it appears likely that we will not have any incompatibility to worry about.  
> I think it is appropriate for us to begin to consider B (accountability) and C (workability). I have some thoughts on B that I will try to convey to the list before the Feb 19th call, which I am not sure I can make.
> --MM
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 12:50 PM
> To: ICG
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment
> 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?
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> 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