[Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Wed Feb 18 07:26:34 UTC 2015

Thanks Alissa ..
I also agree to the proposed way forward in order to utilize our time
effectively and facilitate the work ahead of us when we receive the
names proposal ..
Kind Regards

-----Original Message-----
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:57 AM
To: Alissa Cooper
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment

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
> 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
nalization-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
> 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

Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list