[Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Tue Jan 13 14:02:14 UTC 2015

I would like to review the protocols proposal and the numbers proposal.

I think the real challenge of this process is going to be assessing the relationship between the proposals, and since it is a while before we will get the names proposal, there is not a lot that can be done now other than checking for completeness. Investing too much time or pretending that the reviews are finished before we have all of them will just lead to duplicative work later on.


From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 5:51 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: Milton L Mueller; Paul Wilson; ICG
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG

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?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150113/8bb46a20/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list