[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates

Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net
Tue Feb 24 23:03:18 UTC 2015

I think the point here is not about first-comers having priority, but rather that all proposals need to minimise the impact that they may have on others. 

It was an assumption of the entire RFP process that we could receive 3 proposals which would be developed independently (or largely independently), and assemble them into a single cohesive proposal, without major changes to any of them. 

It is clear I think that the 2 proposals that we have received make no assumptions about IANA names registries and functions, and impose no changes or restrictions on those functions. We might assume that the remaining proposal will do the same, and say nothing, for fear of appearing prescriptive.

However, it does appear possible that the names proposal might include or imply changes to the IANA structure or functions which have wider impacts, and which make a reconciliation of the 3 proposals impossible. I do think it may be necessary for the ICG to issue some kind of reminder of our expectations, and of the difficulty we will have if the names proposal does impact severely on the others.

Again it is not a question of the first proposals having priority, but of all proposals needing to respect the independence and integrity of the others.


On 25 February 2015 05:49:39 GMT+09:00, michael niebel <fmniebel at gmail.com> wrote:
>The phrasing - although softened e.g by "to the extent possible" -
>still imply that it is the "latecomer" community  that would have to
>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. 
>> along the lines of... ICG would welcome the names community's review
>> 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
>> review for consistency and conflict avoidance process within the
>> proposal development process would enable us to assemble the final
>> 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
>> 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
>> correct - could not be interpreted as inappropriately prescriptive
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> need to produce its output will be shortest if the CWG response is
>>> has little or no dependencies on other work and is compatible with
>>> 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
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at icann.org

Paul Wilson,  Director General,  APNIC 

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list