[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
James M. Bladel
jbladel at godaddy.com
Tue Feb 24 18:24:12 UTC 2015
Agreed, this could be received as the ICG "advising" the CWG on its output.
They have the RFP, and we can safely assume this operational community's response will be larger and more complex than the others.
From: michael niebel <fmniebel at gmail.com<mailto:fmniebel at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 11:15
To: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net<mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>>
Cc: ICG List <internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
I am not sure whether the addition that you propose - although factually correct - could not be interpreted as inappropriately prescriptive through the backdoor.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net<mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>> wrote:
The actions before we receive the CWG response are very reasonable and I support them. I am ambivalent as far as a public comment period is concerned.
I still believe we should tell the CWG that we are prepared to work as expeditiously as possible once we receive their proposal and ask them to let us know if there are any changes in their delivery date.
I also propose to add this to what we say: "The time that the ICG will need to produce its output will be shortest if the CWG response is simple, has little or no dependencies on other work and is compatible with the responses already received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities."
On 23.02.15 18:22 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
(1) What does the ICG plan to do before receiving the CWG proposal?
(2) What does the ICG plan to do after receiving the CWG proposal?
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg