[Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG

[joseph alhadeff]

Colleagues

I suggest that we have reviewers for each proposal that include 
technical savvy and less technical oriented reviewers - to make sure 
that technical nuances may be appropriately considered?  The next two 
weeks are tight but I can volunteer where needed.  May I suggest that we 
need to spread out across all the submissions...  Names seems to have 
the greatest gravitational attraction for obvious reasons...

Joe

On 1/6/2015 6:45 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Narelle,
>
> That there is some amount of reading to do is probably a feature in all proposals,
> at least if they point to existing mechanisms described elsewhere or describe
> new mechanisms with a reasonable level of detail.
>
> No one said the ICG job was going to be easy :-) And while I’d probably classify
> our task more in the category of ensuring the proposals fulfil the criteria and can
> fit to the rest of the system than determining if they are satisfactory to us, in any case
> there will be some reading and proposal-understanding ahead all of us. Unless
> the rest of you already understand everything, I certainly do not...
>
> If there’s anything that the IETF team can do to help provide information
> or explain wrt our arrangements, let us know.
>
> 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/20150107/4f1f8bbe/attachment.html>