<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Jari:<br>
<br>
The detail needs to be sufficient to address the issues of concern
related to the implementation as you point out. Where there is
nothing new about the implementation, the existing implementation
can be referenced with a statement of any changes related to that
implementation. Only that which is different would require some
further information. Things that are new would need better
descriptions, including how they may be held accountable under the
respective community process, if they too are new.<br>
<br>
While the communities writ large, not the ICG, are the arbiters of
what is substantively good enough for their portion of the proposal,
we do have a role in making sure that the proposal has enough
information to address the questions/issue raised by NTIA as well as
to assure that the information can serve as a basis for support of
the overall proposal across communities.<br>
<br>
best-<br>
<br>
Joe<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/24/2015 12:46 PM, Jari Arkko
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:9C3892CA-4600-41BC-8D70-88E2047CAB7A@piuha.net"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I deem the ICG owes to the 3 communities to provide respective guideline as the NTIA was raising the implementation question during the Singapore meeting. There may be a great variation in implementation details. And the various detail options shall directly impact the time needed to elaborate – hence our timeline.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Quick reaction:
First off, I think it is not the ICG opinion that matters. Once again, we need broad community backing of a plan to make it credible. I am more interested in seeing that we get results that are backed by the communities and that have gone through a sufficient process, rather than inserting my own opinions on what the proposal should say. The CWG needs to see themselves as being in charge, and they need to make the difficult decisions and create community consensus so that the world has something that we can rely on wrt future IANA arrangements on names.
Secondly, that being said I think the answer on what level of implementation detail is sufficient is that it depends. Situations are different. As an example, 98% of what is in the IETF proposal is something that we’ve had in place for a decade, and we have lots of experience from it. I think that definitely qualifies as sufficient detail :-) And the remaining 2% are things where the community found the level of guidance in the proposal sufficient. I have no worries in this respect.
But if you have a different situation, you may want a differing level of detail. Lets say you have a proposal that creates a completely new entity for some task. While requiring a decade of experience on that new thing might be going too far :-) I think some level of detail is needed. Do you need all contracts everywhere, ready to be signed? No. Do you need to have a clear idea of what you are creating? Yes. For a new entity, a charter would definitely be in my list of ready things to have.
Jari
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>