[Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates

[Martin Boyle]

I do not disagree, but it would seem to me to be useful in our role as a Coordination Group to make sure that the three different groups think a bit about the other teams’ work – there will certainly be some need to look for areas of convergence in the different approaches and the earlier they think about differences, the more likely we will be to have the discrepancies addressed.

Incidentally, the other direction is also important – the numbers and protocol parameters should also think about how to respond to the ideas coming from the names community.

If we wait until the names proposal is in, positions will be fixed and there will be little of the flexibility that Milton’s example shows.

MB

From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: 25 February 2015 04:03
To: joseph alhadeff; michael niebel
Cc: IANA
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates



to the extent appropriate?  It is not unreasonable for us to ask that they take account of what's already been drafted, that doesn't bind them to it merely informs them of the potential benefits of drafting that could avoid conflicts.

MM: We didn’t say this to the CRISP team even though we received the IETF proposal first. And It’s a good thing we didn’t, CRISP came up with a slightly different take on the IPR issues and IETF was willing to adjust to accommodate it

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150226/3bf15df7/attachment-0001.html>