[Internal-cg] Further subdivision of IANA constituencies?
Lynn at lstamour.org
Wed Jul 16 22:33:11 UTC 2014
On Jul 16, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
> But we discussed this is breaking down in connection with the “names community”, because, it seems to me, such a community really does not exist, and may not be viable due to fundamental differences.
> Is there a solution for us in subdividing the names community further into GNSO, CCs, and Registries, as in fact the CG constituencies reflect. My question is whether the transition plans of these groups actually do need to be shared, or if they can be asked to lay out their plans/requirements independently, for us to then reconcile. We may find that their differences can actually coexist in the final plan, without breaking anything.
Hi Paul, all,
I think this could be a good way to start (assuming the Names constituencies agree with the stated premise and they think this is a useful approach). The Names transition plan could then be built up reflecting points of commonality; where there are differences the Names community can then evaluate those for impact and/or necessity.
Based on how the Protocol Parameters and Numbers groups manage these spaces (your Circle ID article was helpful here and I saw a lot of resonance with the Protocol Parameters space), it also seems there might be the base for an evaluation framework as well.
More information about the Internal-cg