[Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG

[Kavouss Arasteh]

I support Milton,s. Views  since the assessment process should not be merely done by those who developed the proposal
Kavouss    

Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Jan 2015, at 23:39, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at lstamour.org> wrote:
> 
> I like and support Milton's proposal.   It will help us move the process forward while providing appropriate "oversight" of our reviews.
> 
> Lynn
> 
>> On Jan 9, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> 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. 
>> 
>> --MM
>> 
>>> -----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
>>> later).
>>> 
>>> Does that make sense?
>>> 
>>> Paul.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________________________________
>>> ________
>>> 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
>>> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg