[Internal-cg] IETF response evaluation in the ICG

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Mon Jan 19 14:47:37 UTC 2015

Hi Jari,

On Jan 18, 2015, at 12:35 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:

> A couple of observations from using the template.
> At this point, we have not really asked for a lot of feedback from the community,

Section I of the RFP <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf> explains how the community could provide feedback to us. Of course we encouraged people to participate directly in the community processes, which they seem to have done, so we did not receive many comments directly. But we did setup a mechanism for community feedback to us when we released the RFP.

> hence template point A.1 will unlikely have a lot of material for any of the submissions, unless significant number of people have decided to complain to the ICG about something going on in that particular operational community. But we will of course later get more feedback.
> Also on point A.1, it says explicitly “process concern”, I took that to be issues specifically related to running the process, rather than substantial concerns (such as comments on a proposal). Was this as intended?

Yes. Section A is about process and Section B is about substance.


> For the rest, I chose to use largely words from the proposal itself, when it provided such words. Obviously, only in those cases where I believed the situation to really be as described. But I could have chosen to write some of the answers in my own words, as well. This seemed unnecessary in cases where a clear piece of text was already provided.
> <individual-proposal-assessment-parameters-v02.doc>
> Jari

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150119/27b91360/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list