[Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG

Mon Feb 2 13:53:45 UTC 2015

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