[Internal-cg] RFP feedback from IETF community

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Sep 4 16:45:58 UTC 2014

For para, 1 of your text/message ,we should rely on NTIA Announcement and
pick up the term  from there>
For para, 2
Yes ,if there is a need to define timeframe/time scale( this is matter that
I also mentioned in my comment   on the consensus building process).Regards.
However, selection of an appropriate time frame should be consistent with
the overall  delivery schedule of final outcome of the ICG

2014-09-04 18:11 GMT+02:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>:

> I circulated the communities RFP to the IETF community and I wanted to
> relay back two pieces of feedback that were received.
> 1) As I think Elise had pointed out earlier, the document uses the terms
> IANA “functions," “services" and “activities.” It might not be clear if
> these are all words for the same thing, or if they mean different things.
> If they are the same, perhaps we should choose just one term. If there are
> differences, a short explanation of those differences could be useful.
> 2) In Section IV about transition implications, we might want to include
> an additional bullet point about “How long the proposals in Section III
> are expected to take to complete and any intermediate milestones that may
> occur before they are completed.”
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140904/167fa462/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list