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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Jan 16 16:49:54 UTC 2015


Agree with Milton views.
There should be a practicality to do the job rather than rush.
Tks
Kavouss


2015-01-16 16:19 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150116/7e9c4eca/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list