[Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal

[Alissa Cooper]

Milton,

> On Jan 16, 2015, at 7:19 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> No disagreement on substantive matters here. 
> 
> I am merely pointing out that our own timeline says that we will develop a draft response to the proposals by March 13.

Yes, but that also factors in time for the operational communities to respond to our evaluations, which is why we set down Feb 13 as a target for that. In any event I don't think we'll have trouble staying roughly on the schedule we outlined for protocol parameters. 

Alissa

> So while we can begin discussion of the protocols (and, perhaps now, the numbers) proposal(s) on January 28, I see no reason to impose a Jan 26 deadline on _all_ reviews of the protocols proposal. 
> 
> I agree with Daniel that we need to "exercise" our review mechanisms as soon as possible. What I am concerned about is an arbitrary deadline on the reviews. Although I do agree with Alissa that it would be nice if everyone she designated could finish a complete review by Jan 26, I don't think that is either necessary or likely. I suspect very strongly that we will be going back to reviewing that proposal after our Jan 28 and Feb 6 discussions. 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-
>> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
>> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 8:41 AM
>> To: ICG
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal
>> 
>> I agree with Alissa, Daniel and Joe's reasoning.   And, I fully support
>> proceeding as we had previously agreed and as Alissa has outlined.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Lynn
>> 
>> On Jan 16, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Daniel Karrenberg
>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> We should proceed as far as we can with the responses we have received.
>> We should do this at a reasonably agressive pace.
>>> 
>>> Some reasons:
>>> 
>>> - We owe it to the communities that worked hard to meet the deadlines.
>> We need to keep a positive relationship with them goong forward. They need
>> to stay motivated. We should not frustrate them by appearing to be tardy.
>>> 
>>> - We gain time for discussing clarifications and improvements of the
>> responses we already have with the respective communities.
>>> 
>>> - It makes sense get as much work out of the way as we can as early as
>> possible to free up capacity for the later stages.
>>> 
>>> - We need to exercise our own machinery as much as we can.
>>> 
>>> So I wholeheartedly support proceeding as Alissa sugests.
>>> 
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> Sent from a handheld device.
>>> 
>>>> On 15.01.2015, at 19:08, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Milton,
>>>> 
>>>> I suggested Jan 26 because our next call is on Jan 28. That way we can
>> devote a good part of that call to starting the discussion about the protocol
>> parameters proposal. We can continue that discussion in Singapore.
>>>> 
>>>> Since Step I of our finalization process involves evaluating the proposals
>> individually <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-
>> assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf>, I think we can and should proceed
>> with that step for the proposals we do receive. We're aiming to get that done
>> by Feb 15 according to our process.
>>>> 
>>>> Of course, the names work taking place right now is very important and
>> folks who are heavily involved in that might not have as much time to review
>> the protocol parameters proposal. I think that's perfectly fine, since we have
>> a couple people on the hook to do a thorough review of that proposal and
>> bring their evaluations back to the rest of us.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Alissa
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've been looking at the total landscape related to IANA transition and I
>> have a question about the Jan 26 deadline for reviewing the IETF proposal.
>>>>> There is a ton of work going on in the names CWG and CCWG in that
>> time frame, and given the relatively unfinished state of the names work I
>> think it's more important to advance that work.
>>>>> At the same time, I am having trouble understanding what we can do
>> with a review of the protocols proposal by Jan 26. Is the purpose to be able
>> to discuss it at the Singapore meeting, or what?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Milton L Mueller
>>>>> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University
>>>>> School of Information Studies
>>>>> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>>>>> Internet Governance Project
>>>>> http://internetgovernance.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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