[Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal
mnuduma at yahoo.com
Sat Jan 17 08:44:17 UTC 2015
This strengthened my earlier mail.Mary Uduma
On Friday, January 16, 2015 2:41 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at lstamour.org> wrote:
I agree with Alissa, Daniel and Joe's reasoning. And, I fully support proceeding as we had previously agreed and as Alissa has outlined.
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.
> 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.
>> 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
>>> Internet Governance Project
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg