[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates

[michael niebel]

The phrasing - although softened e.g by "to the extent possible" - would
still imply that it is the "latecomer" community  that would have to adapt
to the "first mover" proposals to assure consistency.

Best
Michael

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:42 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
> wrote:

>  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>
> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 11:15
> To: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
> Cc: ICG List <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> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://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/e087b7f1/attachment.html>