[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Feb 24 22:29:08 UTC 2015
Some of us are bipolar that means speaks in such a way that mtheir vierws
are always abstantive.
Such course of action may not be very productive that someone d.
Athis eems not very apprerciated speak bipolary.
Either we have view one or view two
WE May have another view between the two
That is also ggod
2015-02-24 22:42 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:
> to the extent appropriate? It is not unreasonable for us to ask that
> they take account of what's already been drafted, that doesn't bind them to
> it merely informs them of the potential benefits of drafting that could
> avoid conflicts.
> On 2/24/2015 3:49 PM, michael niebel wrote:
> 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.
> 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
>> 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>
>> 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
>> 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> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>> Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg