[Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG

[Manal Ismail]

I also support Milton's proposal .. 

In fact, I suggest that all ICG members, to the extent
possible/feasible, contribute to all assessment steps of all proposals
.. This diversity in the level of involvement and knowledge is useful ..
I'm not sure how we plan to carry out the assessment but I believe it
would be best to discuss on the mailing list ..
I believe this would ensure equal benefiting from all available
information and all shared views before reaching a consensus view ..

Kind Regards
--Manal

-----Original Message-----
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 6:21 PM
To: Lynn St.Amour
Cc: ICG
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG

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
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg