[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Feb 26 18:33:21 UTC 2015


Dear All,
We need to be patient a little bit and monitor what CWG is doing.
We  should not impose  nor instruct CWG what to do. They are very busy and
doing what their community agree to do.
Protocol and numbers are making panic and pushing for something which a) is
not consistent with our charter and b) might produce unintended
conséquences.
Please be patient
Regards
Kavouss

2015-02-26 18:29 GMT+01:00 Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>:

>  I do not disagree, but it would seem to me to be useful in our role as a
> Coordination Group to make sure that the three different groups think a bit
> about the other teams’ work – there will certainly be some need to look for
> areas of convergence in the different approaches and the earlier they think
> about differences, the more likely we will be to have the discrepancies
> addressed.
>
>
>
> Incidentally, the other direction is also important – the numbers and
> protocol parameters should also think about how to respond to the ideas
> coming from the names community.
>
>
>
> If we wait until the names proposal is in, positions will be fixed and
> there will be little of the flexibility that Milton’s example shows.
>
>
>
> MB
>
>
>
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller
> *Sent:* 25 February 2015 04:03
> *To:* joseph alhadeff; michael niebel
> *Cc:* IANA
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process
> updates
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> MM: We didn’t say this to the CRISP team even though we received the IETF
> proposal first. And It’s a good thing we didn’t, CRISP came up with a
> slightly different take on the IPR issues and IETF was willing to adjust to
> accommodate it
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150226/d8dc9ba8/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list