[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Tue Feb 24 19:42:09 UTC 2015

The phrasing could be adjusted to assure the tone is advisory. Something 
along the lines of... ICG would welcome the names community's review of 
existing community proposals and other related work of the ICG in 
preparation of its proposal to assure, to the extent possible, both 
consistency and avoidance of conflicts with existing proposals.  Such a 
review for consistency and conflict avoidance process within the Names 
proposal development process would enable us to assemble the final 
proposal more expeditiously.
On 2/24/2015 1:24 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
> 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.
> Thanks—
> J.
> 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
> Daniel,
> I am not sure whether the addition that you propose - although 
> factually correct - could not be interpreted as inappropriately 
> prescriptive through the backdoor.
> Michael
> 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."
>     Daniel
>     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>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150224/59429fca/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list