[Internal-cg] Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Feb 23 12:52:36 UTC 2015

Dear All 
To be brief,
I support Martin, s views
I do nit agree with two consultation fir Protocol and number  and only one Name
Three three must have two.
I also believe that 15 days is too short
Minimum 21 days fir each and perhaps the second one 28 days

Sent from my iPhone

> On 19 Feb 2015, at 19:01, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> Thanks Alissa,
> I’m afraid that I will not be able to join next week’s call (it will be during my night and I am driving the following morning early).  I am also away on holiday from tonight until Tuesday late.  So I thought it might be useful to put down just a couple of comments on the timeline.
> I am basing my points on the optimised sheet.  I welcome what you are trying to do so that we have a real sense of delivery by end September.  I do not feel greatly convinced…
> We obviously do need to show substantive progress by end of September.  At the least, we ought to be able to say to NTIA and more widely:
> 1.       This is the direction of travel
> 2.       These are the pieces that need to be finalised
> 3.       This is the timescale for those pieces to be delivered.
> 4.       So this is when the transition could be finalised (and then there is also the implementation period – the more complicated our solution, the longer that stage will take).
> On specific points, I am concerned with the way this schedule deals with the two consultation periods.  I’m not sure that the first looking at the IETF & RIR pieces and the second the full works really works for me and 15 days for this second one seems unrealistic.  Yes, interested parties will only just have gone through the consultation period, but in fact what we will be looking for here is how the different elements will bed together.  So shouldn’t we really be looking at step 4.1 ending end week 1 August, all subsequent steps shifting right two blocks and then an iteration for a second consultation to closure as per the previous timescale?
> We should also look some time after delivery of the CWG input into the timescale to prepare the right material for NTIA for end September (or more correctly beginning of October when they can start to work on it again).
> Thanks and have a good call next week.
> Martin
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: 19 February 2015 16:44
> To: ICG
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for Feb 25 teleconference
> Here is a proposed agenda for the teleconference we are currently doodling about for next week. Please comment.
> (1) Minutes approval for F2F meeting Feb 6-7 
> (minutes should be available for review this week)
> (2) ICG timeline discussion
> Objective: Decide on our timeline going forward so that we can publish an updated timeline. See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/002969.html>.
> (3) Discussion of responses to question posed to IETF and RIRs
> (assuming we receive responses by Feb 21)
> (4) Begin Step 2 assessment of IETF and RIR proposals in combination
> See this thread: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003049.html>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150223/80e416a8/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list