[Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal

[Milton L Mueller]

No disagreement on substantive matters here. 

I am merely pointing out that our own timeline says that we will develop a draft response to the proposals by March 13. So while we can begin discussion of the protocols (and, perhaps now, the numbers) proposal(s) on January 28, I see no reason to impose a Jan 26 deadline on _all_ reviews of the protocols proposal. 

I agree with Daniel that we need to "exercise" our review mechanisms as soon as possible. What I am concerned about is an arbitrary deadline on the reviews. Although I do agree with Alissa that it would be nice if everyone she designated could finish a complete review by Jan 26, I don't think that is either necessary or likely. I suspect very strongly that we will be going back to reviewing that proposal after our Jan 28 and Feb 6 discussions. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 8:41 AM
> To: ICG
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal
> 
> I agree with Alissa, Daniel and Joe's reasoning.   And, I fully support
> proceeding as we had previously agreed and as Alissa has outlined.
> 
> Best,
> Lynn
> 
> On Jan 16, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Daniel Karrenberg
> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> > We should proceed as far as we can with the responses we have received.
> We should do this at a reasonably agressive pace.
> >
> > Some reasons:
> >
> > - We owe it to the communities that worked hard to meet the deadlines.
> We need to keep a positive relationship with them goong forward. They need
> to stay motivated. We should not frustrate them by appearing to be tardy.
> >
> > - We gain time for discussing clarifications and improvements of the
> responses we already have with the respective communities.
> >
> > - It makes sense get as much work out of the way as we can as early as
> possible to free up capacity for the later stages.
> >
> > - We need to exercise our own machinery as much as we can.
> >
> > So I wholeheartedly support proceeding as Alissa sugests.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Sent from a handheld device.
> >
> > On 15.01.2015, at 19:08, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Milton,
> >>
> >> I suggested Jan 26 because our next call is on Jan 28. That way we can
> devote a good part of that call to starting the discussion about the protocol
> parameters proposal. We can continue that discussion in Singapore.
> >>
> >> Since Step I of our finalization process involves evaluating the proposals
> individually <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-
> assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf>, I think we can and should proceed
> with that step for the proposals we do receive. We're aiming to get that done
> by Feb 15 according to our process.
> >>
> >> Of course, the names work taking place right now is very important and
> folks who are heavily involved in that might not have as much time to review
> the protocol parameters proposal. I think that's perfectly fine, since we have
> a couple people on the hook to do a thorough review of that proposal and
> bring their evaluations back to the rest of us.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Alissa
> >>
> >> On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've been looking at the total landscape related to IANA transition and I
> have a question about the Jan 26 deadline for reviewing the IETF proposal.
> >>> There is a ton of work going on in the names CWG and CCWG in that
> time frame, and given the relatively unfinished state of the names work I
> think it's more important to advance that work.
> >>> At the same time, I am having trouble understanding what we can do
> with a review of the protocols proposal by Jan 26. Is the purpose to be able
> to discuss it at the Singapore meeting, or what?
> >>>
> >>> Milton L Mueller
> >>> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University
> >>> School of Information Studies
> >>> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
> >>> Internet Governance Project
> >>> http://internetgovernance.org
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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