[Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Jari,
May you kindly send me a copy of your assessment as referred to by
Jean-Jaques
Regards
KA

2015-02-02 14:53 GMT+01:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net>:

> Dear All,
>
> this is to convey my agreement with the draft Assessment on IETF's
> response to the RFP, regarding Protocol Parmaeters. Jari, please add my
> name to the list of those who did the Assessment.
>
> Having read IETF's response, I would like to offer my congratulations to
> Lear & Housley for the thoroughness, impeccable documentation and clarity
> of their response of behalf of IAB and IETF. Well done Russ!
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg at icann.org>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 14 Janvier 2015 14:35:56
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG
>
>
>
>
> Dear All,
> While we appreciate that Jari take up the task to fill up the form,but
> would not be better that someone else from ICG 9 outside the Parameter
> operating community) does that work?
> Kavouss
>
>
>
>
> 2015-01-13 22:15 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper < alissa at cooperw.in > :
>
>
> This makes sense to me.
>
> Jari, this means you would take the lead on the protocol parameters
> proposal assessment and fill out the sheet. The other reviewers who
> volunteered can use that as input in their own reviews and we can leave it
> up to them as to whether they fill out the sheet or not. And the same for
> all the rest of us.
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Joseph Alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Alissa to Martin's previous email, perhaps the person highly involved
> takes the first shot at filling out the review form and the others can
> validate that it's accurate and each can opine on whether it's correct,
> complete sufficient, whatever the right administrative word, to meet the
> RFP.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown ( www.nitrodesk.com )
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Alissa Cooper [ alissa at cooperw.in ]
> > Received: Monday, 12 Jan 2015, 5:51PM
> > To: Jari Arkko [ jari.arkko at piuha.net ]
> > CC: ICG [ internal-cg at icann.org ]
> > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG
> >
> > I’ve reviewed this thread and the other related threads and would like
> to suggest the following:
> >
> > We should strive to get a few people specifically committed to reviewing
> each proposal, and those people should have varying levels of involvement
> in each process and familiarity with each community, including “insiders”
> and “outsiders.” For protocol parameters, I would suggest that the full
> reviewers be:
> >
> > Jean-Jacques Subrenat
> > Keith Drazek
> > Daniel Karrenberg
> > Jari Arkko
> >
> > This group has a couple of “outsiders,” Jari who was deeply involved in
> the proposal development, and Daniel who is familiar with the IETF but was
> not involved in the proposal development. Based on who else has volunteered
> already, I think we can find this kind of balance for all of the proposals
> we receive.
> >
> > (Jean-Jacques and Keith have already volunteered for protocol parameters
> — would be great if the other two listed above are available for this but
> if not please shout).
> >
> > Anyone else who wants to review the proposal should feel free to do so,
> of course.
> >
> > Joe and I have put together the attached assessment sheet for the
> reviewers to fill out and send back to the ICG when their reviews are
> complete. <
> https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20process
> >
> >
> > Since we have a call scheduled for January 28, I would suggest a
> deadline of January 26 for the protocol parameters reviewers to send their
> reviews to the ICG, and for anyone else to send reviews or initial
> comments. Then we could potentially have some initial discussion and Q&A on
> our January 28 call, to be continued Feb 6-7. This timing gives the
> reviewers 2 weeks to complete their reviews.
> >
> > Does this seem workable?
> >
> > Alissa
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 12, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Jari Arkko < jari.arkko at piuha.net > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> I don't think it is appropriate for people who were actively engaged
> in developing a proposal, and who come only from the affected operational
> community, to be the ONLY ones evaluating it for the ICG as a whole. That
> lack of objectivity will not have the legitimacy we need.
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, I think it is important for someone who understands
> how the proposal evolved and why certain decisions were made to be present
> during the evaluation. So I would call for both types of parties to play a
> role in the initial evaluation, rather than excluding one or the other.
> >>
> >> This seems very reasonable. Thanks.
> >>
> >> Jari
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150202/f994e2fc/attachment.html>