[Internal-cg] ICG call

[joseph alhadeff]

Jari:

The detail needs to be sufficient to address the issues of concern 
related to the implementation as you point out.  Where there is nothing 
new about the implementation, the existing implementation can be 
referenced with a statement of any changes related to that 
implementation.  Only that which is different would require some further 
information.  Things that are new would need better descriptions, 
including how they may be held accountable under the respective 
community process, if they too are new.

While the communities writ large, not the ICG, are the arbiters of what 
is substantively good enough for their portion of the proposal, we do 
have a role in making sure that the proposal has enough information to 
address the questions/issue raised by NTIA as well as to assure that the 
information can serve as a basis for support of the overall proposal 
across communities.

best-

Joe

On 2/24/2015 12:46 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> I deem the ICG owes to the 3 communities to provide respective guideline as the NTIA was raising the implementation question during the Singapore meeting. There may be a great variation in implementation details. And the various detail options shall directly impact the time needed to elaborate – hence our timeline.
> Quick reaction:
>
> First off, I think it is not the ICG opinion that matters. Once again, we need broad community backing of a plan to make it credible. I am more interested in seeing that we get results that are backed by the communities and that have gone through a sufficient process, rather than inserting my own opinions on what the proposal should say. The CWG needs to see themselves as being in charge, and they need to make the difficult decisions and create community consensus so that the world has something that we can rely on wrt future IANA arrangements on names.
>
> Secondly, that being said I think the answer on what level of implementation detail is sufficient is that it depends. Situations are different. As an example, 98% of what is in the IETF proposal is something that we’ve had in place for a decade, and we have lots of experience from it. I think that definitely qualifies as sufficient detail :-) And the remaining 2% are things where the community found the level of guidance in the proposal sufficient. I have no worries in this respect.
>
> But if you have a different situation, you may want a differing level of detail. Lets say you have a proposal that creates a completely new entity for some task. While requiring a decade of experience on that new thing might be going too far :-) I think some level of detail is needed. Do you need all contracts everywhere, ready to be signed? No. Do you need to have a clear idea of what you are creating? Yes. For a new entity, a charter would definitely be in my list of ready things to have.
>
> Jari
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150224/a8119622/attachment.html>