[Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Fri Jan 9 14:58:15 UTC 2015
I find myself in the middle ground on this discussion.
I don't think it is appropriate for people who were actively engaged in developing a proposal, and who come only from the affected operational community, to be the ONLY ones evaluating it for the ICG as a whole. That lack of objectivity will not have the legitimacy we need.
On the other hand, I think it is important for someone who understands how the proposal evolved and why certain decisions were made to be present during the evaluation. So I would call for both types of parties to play a role in the initial evaluation, rather than excluding one or the other.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson
> Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 7:48 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper
> Cc: ICG
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG
> I have an alternative suggestion, that the ICG members from the proposal's
> community could carry out the assessment as required in Step I, and
> document thoroughly and specifically how the proposal satisfies the given
> criteria (i.e. A1/2/3 and B1/2/3). This is something that can be done much
> more readily and thoroughly (IMHO) by ICG members who already
> understand the proposal fully.
> This initial assessment (to be produced by say 30 Jan) would then be
> reviewed by the rest of the ICG, and discussed in detail during the face-face
> meeting on Feb 6/7 in Singapore.
> And I assume Step I will have some kind of formal "sign off" by the ICG as a
> whole before we move on to Step II (whether we do that in Singapore or
> Does that make sense?
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg at apnic.net>
> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
> On 7 Jan 2015, at 8:58 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> > Thank you, Jari.
> > It would be great if we could get some volunteers to conduct Step I of the
> finalization process <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-
> transition-assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf> for this proposal, say
> within the next 2 weeks. Please respond to the list if you're willing to conduct
> this assessment.
> > Thanks,
> > Alissa
> > On Jan 6, 2015, at 9:25 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:
> >> Dear all,
> >> As you know, the IETF has been working on the protocol parameters
> >> aspects of the transition. We created the IANAPLAN working group,
> >> developed a proposed response, and held community discussions.
> >> And of course, there has been a lot of past evolution in this space
> >> as well.
> >> This part of the process is coming to an end from our side. Our
> >> steering group, the IESG, approved the proposed response on December
> >> 18, and after some minor editorial changes, the document has been
> >> formally approved today, January 6.
> >> The link to our proposal is below, and we look forward to working
> >> with the ICG and other communities on the next steps. We are
> >> committed to ensuring a good outcome for the Internet in this topic.
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09
> >> Jari Arkko
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg