[Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process v4
alissa at cooperw.in
Wed Dec 10 01:24:28 UTC 2014
On Dec 9, 2014, at 3:41 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> Overlap. Some proposals may cover the same ground in related functions (overlap) but not interfere with each other and create no conflict.
I don’t have really strong feelings about the actual text here, but I’m still not sure I understand. The whole point of the overlap question is to determine whether the communities implicated by the overlap have specified approaches that are either the same or work with each other. To take a theoretical example, if the IETF said one thing about the administration of multicast IP address allocations and the RIRs say something different, the point of this check is to identify this discrepancy. By definition, every overlap is “possibly conflicting” — that’s the whole point of doing this check. But given that, I’m fine with adding the qualifier, since I don’t think it has any impact on the space of overlaps that we will need to check.
> That is not an issue needing to be resolved.
> As to the ICANN accountability cross reference placeholder; it was a holdover question (do we need a placeholder with possible text if we do) more than a drafting suggestion.
> n 12/9/2014 6:19 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> I have consolidated the comments and edits from Milton, Adiel, Joe, and Russ in the attached v4 <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20process>. I accepted changes on all the text where no one had commented for easier reading. I also inserted a few comments/edits of my own the proposed changes, which I repeat below.
>> Step 1a, bullet 3: Milton suggested using "Whether the proposal obtained consensus” instead of “How the proposal obtained consensus.”
>> I am fine with “whether.” I would also be fine with “Whether and how.” In the RFP, we ask the communities to explain “the steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to determine consensus.” I would consider a list of those steps to be the “how.”
>> Step 1b: Adiel suggested adding a bullet about timeliness.
>> I do not think this is actionable and so should not be included. If we get a proposal after the target deadline, I do not believe we are in a position to do anything other than start conducting the assessment in step 1. Of course, if we get a proposal many weeks/months after the target deadline, it will create some chaos for all of the steps afterward, but I don’t really see a lot of value in specifying how we will handle every possible case of that sort that could arise depending on the exact timing and sequence of the arrival of the component proposals.
>> Step 2: Adiel questioned whether the statement that the ICG’s role “is not to draft a single transition proposal” is accurate.
>> I believe it is accurate, in the sense that we are not “drafting” or writing anything of our own. I added the words “of its own” to the end of that phrase to try to make this more clear.
>> Step 2: Adiel questioned the use of the word “unifying.”
>> I agree that “unifying” and “uniform” are confusing. I believe our task is one of assembly. Our goal is to end up with one document, but not to massage the text of the component proposals to achieve “unity.” I have replaced the word “unified” in this section with the word “single” to make this clear.
>> Step 2a: Joe inserted “possibly conflicting” as a qualifier for “overlaps”
>> I don’t understand what a conflicting overlap is, and I think the proposals need to have a coherent story about all overlaps. So I disagree with this addition.
>> Step 2b: Joe asked whether we need to cross-reference the ICANN accountability work.
>> I think this is already covered by the fact that we are already asking "Do the proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function?”
>> Step 2c: There has been list discussion between Joe and Russ about testing.
>> I suggested some text as a middle ground approach. In the RFP we do ask the communities to describe any testing they do. I’m not quite sure how the test results could conflict with each other or otherwise be problematic in combination, but I’m happy to check for that when we’re assembling the single proposal.
>> Step 5: I have made the latest changes suggested on the list by Milton, which I think address everyone’s concerns.
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg