<div dir="ltr">The phrasing - although softened e.g by &quot;to the extent possible&quot; - would still imply that it is the &quot;latecomer&quot; community  that would have to adapt to the &quot;first mover&quot; proposals to assure consistency.<div><br></div><div>Best</div><div>Michael</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:42 PM, joseph alhadeff <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com" target="_blank">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
  
    
  
  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    The phrasing could be adjusted to assure the tone is advisory. 
    Something along the lines of... ICG would welcome the names
    community&#39;s review of existing community proposals and other related
    work of the ICG in preparation of its proposal to assure, to the
    extent possible, both consistency and avoidance of conflicts with
    existing proposals.  Such a review for consistency and conflict
    avoidance process within the Names proposal development process
    would enable us to assemble the final proposal more expeditiously.<br>
    <div>On 2/24/2015 1:24 PM, James M. Bladel
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      
      <div>Agreed, this could be received as the ICG “advising” the CWG
        on its output.  </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>They have the RFP, and we can safely assume this operational
        community’s response will be larger and more complex than the
        others.</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Thanks—</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>J.</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <span>
        <div>
          <span>From: </span>michael niebel &lt;<a href="mailto:fmniebel@gmail.com" target="_blank">fmniebel@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
          <span>Date: </span>Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 11:15 <br>
          <span>To: </span>Daniel Karrenberg &lt;<a href="mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net" target="_blank">daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net</a>&gt;<br>
          <span>Cc: </span>ICG List &lt;<a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">internal-cg@icann.org</a>&gt;<br>
          <span>Subject: </span>Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal
          finalization process updates<br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>
          <div>
            <div dir="ltr">Daniel,
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>I am not sure whether the addition that you propose -
                although factually correct - could not be interpreted as
                inappropriately prescriptive through the backdoor.</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>Michael</div>
            </div>
            <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
              <div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:16 PM,
                Daniel Karrenberg <span dir="ltr">
                  &lt;<a href="mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net" target="_blank">daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net</a>&gt;</span>
                wrote:<br>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote">
                  <br>
                  The actions before we receive the CWG response are
                  very reasonable and I support them. I am ambivalent as
                  far as a public comment period is concerned.<br>
                  <br>
                  I still believe we should tell the CWG that we are
                  prepared to work as expeditiously as possible once we
                  receive their proposal and ask them to let us know if
                  there are any changes in their delivery date.<br>
                  <br>
                  I also propose to add this to what we say: &quot;The time
                  that the ICG will need to produce its output will be
                  shortest if the CWG response is simple, has little or
                  no dependencies on other work and is compatible with
                  the responses already received from the protocol
                  parameters and numbers communities.&quot;<br>
                  <br>
                  Daniel<br>
                  <br>
                  On 23.02.15 18:22 , Alissa Cooper wrote:<br>
                  <blockquote class="gmail_quote">
                    ...<br>
                    (1) What does the ICG plan to do before receiving
                    the CWG proposal?<br>
                    (2) What does the ICG plan to do after receiving the
                    CWG proposal?<br>
                    ...<br>
                    <br>
                  </blockquote>
                  _______________________________________________<br>
                  Internal-cg mailing list<br>
                  <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">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>
                </blockquote>
              </div>
              <br>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </span>
      <br>
      <fieldset></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre>_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org" target="_blank">Internal-cg@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </div>

<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></blockquote></div><br></div>