<div dir="ltr"><div>Agree with Milton views.</div><div>There should be a practicality to do the job rather than rush.</div><div>Tks </div><div>Kavouss </div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-01-16 16:19 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">No disagreement on substantive matters here.<br>
<br>
I am merely pointing out that our own timeline says that we will develop a draft response to the proposals by March 13. 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org">internal-cg-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:internal-cg-">internal-cg-</a><br>
> <a href="mailto:bounces@icann.org">bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour<br>
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 8:41 AM<br>
> To: ICG<br>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal<br>
><br>
> I agree with Alissa, Daniel and Joe's reasoning. And, I fully support<br>
> proceeding as we had previously agreed and as Alissa has outlined.<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
> Lynn<br>
><br>
> On Jan 16, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Daniel Karrenberg<br>
> <<a href="mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net">daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > We should proceed as far as we can with the responses we have received.<br>
> We should do this at a reasonably agressive pace.<br>
> ><br>
> > Some reasons:<br>
> ><br>
> > - We owe it to the communities that worked hard to meet the deadlines.<br>
> We need to keep a positive relationship with them goong forward. They need<br>
> to stay motivated. We should not frustrate them by appearing to be tardy.<br>
> ><br>
> > - We gain time for discussing clarifications and improvements of the<br>
> responses we already have with the respective communities.<br>
> ><br>
> > - It makes sense get as much work out of the way as we can as early as<br>
> possible to free up capacity for the later stages.<br>
> ><br>
> > - We need to exercise our own machinery as much as we can.<br>
> ><br>
> > So I wholeheartedly support proceeding as Alissa sugests.<br>
> ><br>
> > Daniel<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ---<br>
> > Sent from a handheld device.<br>
> ><br>
> > On 15.01.2015, at 19:08, Alissa Cooper <<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >> Hi Milton,<br>
> >><br>
> >> I suggested Jan 26 because our next call is on Jan 28. That way we can<br>
> devote a good part of that call to starting the discussion about the protocol<br>
> parameters proposal. We can continue that discussion in Singapore.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Since Step I of our finalization process involves evaluating the proposals<br>
> individually <<a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-</a><br>
> assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf>, I think we can and should proceed<br>
> with that step for the proposals we do receive. We're aiming to get that done<br>
> by Feb 15 according to our process.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Of course, the names work taking place right now is very important and<br>
> folks who are heavily involved in that might not have as much time to review<br>
> the protocol parameters proposal. I think that's perfectly fine, since we have<br>
> a couple people on the hook to do a thorough review of that proposal and<br>
> bring their evaluations back to the rest of us.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Best,<br>
> >> Alissa<br>
> >><br>
> >> On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >>> I've been looking at the total landscape related to IANA transition and I<br>
> have a question about the Jan 26 deadline for reviewing the IETF proposal.<br>
> >>> There is a ton of work going on in the names CWG and CCWG in that<br>
> time frame, and given the relatively unfinished state of the names work I<br>
> think it's more important to advance that work.<br>
> >>> At the same time, I am having trouble understanding what we can do<br>
> with a review of the protocols proposal by Jan 26. Is the purpose to be able<br>
> to discuss it at the Singapore meeting, or what?<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Milton L Mueller<br>
> >>> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University<br>
> >>> School of Information Studies<br>
> >>> <a href="http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/" target="_blank">http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/</a><br>
> >>> Internet Governance Project<br>
> >>> <a href="http://internetgovernance.org" target="_blank">http://internetgovernance.org</a><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
> >>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
> >><br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
> >> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
> >> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Internal-cg mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
> > <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>