<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Hi Kavouss,</div><div><br></div><div>I’ve attached a version that addresses some of your comments. For the rest, my responses are below.</div><div><br></div><div>In step 2, you asked:</div><div>What do we mean by “the differences between the communities and the related IANA functions”?</div><div><br></div><div>From my perspective the communities are different — they operate differently, they document things differently, the IANA functions that they make use of cover different registries, they rely on IANA in different ways (e.g., 1000s of change requests from the IETF per year versus many fewer IP address delegations), etc. So their proposals will reflect these differences.</div><div><br></div><div>In step 2, you asked:</div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;">What are the basis to make such accountability
assessment without receiving output from CWG abnd CCWG?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;">The proposal from CWG IANA will be part of the basis for the accountability assessment (along with the proposals from the IETF and RIR communities). On the call there was support for relying on the CWG IANA as the voice of the names community, including relying on their choice to leverage the CCWG Accountability work or not.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;">In step 2, you asked:</span></div><div>Do we mean interoperability since workability has no sense here?</div><div><br></div><div>In RFP Section IV we ask the communities to provide the following:</div><div><div>"Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or</div><div>operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to established</div><div>arrangements."</div></div><div><br></div><div>That is the sense in which we are using the term workability.</div><div><br></div><div>In step 3, you said:</div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;">The minimum time should not be less that 30
days </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;">This step is scoped for more than 90 days, so I think this is covered.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;">In step 4, you said:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;">I agree with Alissa to repolce “ broad public
support” with the language that she suggested which is more clear and stragight
forward </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br></span></div><div><font face="Arial">I was not suggesting any changes to language in this section. I was just explaining in email what I think “broad public support” means.</font></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div><font face="Arial">Best,</font></div><div><font face="Arial">Alissa</font></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div></div></body></html>