[Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Mon Jan 12 22:50:37 UTC 2015

I’ve reviewed this thread and the other related threads and would like to suggest the following:

We should strive to get a few people specifically committed to reviewing each proposal, and those people should have varying levels of involvement in each process and familiarity with each community, including “insiders” and “outsiders.” For protocol parameters, I would suggest that the full reviewers be:

Jean-Jacques Subrenat
Keith Drazek
Daniel Karrenberg
Jari Arkko

This group has a couple of “outsiders,” Jari who was deeply involved in the proposal development, and Daniel who is familiar with the IETF but was not involved in the proposal development. Based on who else has volunteered already, I think we can find this kind of balance for all of the proposals we receive.

(Jean-Jacques and Keith have already volunteered for protocol parameters — would be great if the other two listed above are available for this but if not please shout). 

Anyone else who wants to review the proposal should feel free to do so, of course.

Joe and I have put together the attached assessment sheet for the reviewers to fill out and send back to the ICG when their reviews are complete. <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20process>

Since we have a call scheduled for January 28, I would suggest a deadline of January 26 for the protocol parameters reviewers to send their reviews to the ICG, and for anyone else to send reviews or initial comments. Then we could potentially have some initial discussion and Q&A on our January 28 call, to be continued Feb 6-7. This timing gives the reviewers 2 weeks to complete their reviews.

Does this seem workable?


On Jan 12, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:

>> 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. 
> This seems very reasonable. Thanks.
> Jari

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150112/504e35e3/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: individual-proposal-assessment-sheet-v0.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 30720 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150112/504e35e3/individual-proposal-assessment-sheet-v0-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150112/504e35e3/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list