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

Fri Jan 16 17:06:31 UTC 2015

Dear Joe
I fully respect and appreciate those who have timely completed their works.
Other who have not done so were also very efficient and worked hard but the
circumstances did not allow them to have a through analysis of the case.
I also agree with you that we need to use all opportunities and time
availabilities without rush .26 JAN is an objective deadline we may achieve
that or may need to extend that, if necessary
Regards
KAVOUSS

2015-01-16 17:58 GMT+01:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:

> Colleagues:
>
> No one is disagreeing with the need to do the job and do it well, but the
> reality is that two communities have done their work and we have an
> opportunity to progress that work in Singapore, we will not be repesctful
> of their work if we don't use this opportinity.  Maybe there won't be a
> complete review but we cannot ignore the timely work of those communities.
>
> Best
>
> Joe
>
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
> Received: Friday, 16 Jan 2015, 11:50AM
> To: Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu]
> CC: ICG [internal-cg at icann.org]
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal
>
> 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/a584a68c/attachment.html>