[Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Thu Dec 11 23:35:49 UTC 2014

Hi Kavouss,

I’ve attached a version that addresses some of your comments. For the rest, my responses are below.

In step 2, you asked:
What do we mean by “the differences between the communities and the related IANA functions”?

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.

In step 2, you asked:
What are the basis to make such accountability assessment without receiving output from CWG abnd CCWG?

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.

In step 2, you asked:
Do we mean interoperability since workability has no sense here?

In RFP Section IV we ask the communities to provide the following:
"Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or
operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to established

That is the sense in which we are using the term workability.

In step 3, you said:
The minimum time should not be less that 30 days 

This step is scoped for more than 90 days, so I think this is covered.

In step 4, you said:
I agree with Alissa to repolce “ broad public support” with the language that she suggested which is more clear and stragight forward  

I was not suggesting any changes to language in this section. I was just explaining in email what I think “broad public support” means.


On Dec 11, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call
>> Date: December 11, 2014 at 9:08:00 AM PST
>> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
>> Please find attached my comments
>> Kavouss
>> Pls send it to others as I failed to do that
>> Kavouss 
>> 2014-12-11 17:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>:
>> Language in section 5 now addresses all concerns I have raised.
>> The rest of the document now looks reasonable as well. I agree with the new intro, even in the light of my 'ceterum censeo'. ;-)
>> Thank you Alissa.
>> Daniel
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> <proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc,commented by kavouss.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141211/80ab176a/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc-ka-alc.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 38220 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141211/80ab176a/proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc-ka-alc-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141211/80ab176a/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list