[Internal-cg] IETF response evaluation in the ICG

[Jari Arkko]

> Jari, this means you would take the lead on the protocol parameters proposal assessment and fill out the sheet. The other reviewers who volunteered can use that as input in their own reviews and we can leave it up to them as to whether they fill out the sheet or not. And the same for all the rest of us.

I have worked on filling the assessment sheet.

This is probably a good test case for the template and the process as well. Lets learn from this.

This is an initial draft of the assessment, from my perspective (and I showed it to a couple other IETFers as well for feedback). But this draft represents ultimately my view, and it would of course be silly if only my view was used in the ICG process. Hence it is important that the rest of the assessment team for the protocol parameters proposal carefully inspects the submission, and provides their analysis, and that we modify the assessment document accordingly. As Joe said earlier:

> perhaps the person highly involved takes the first shot at filling out the review form and the others can validate that it's accurate and each can opine on whether it's correct, complete sufficient, whatever the right administrative word, to meet the RFP.  

A couple of observations from using the template.

At this point, we have not really asked for a lot of feedback from the community, hence template point A.1 will unlikely have a lot of material for any of the submissions, unless significant number of people have decided to complain to the ICG about something going on in that particular operational community. But we will of course later get more feedback.

Also on point A.1, it says explicitly “process concern”, I took that to be issues specifically related to running the process, rather than substantial concerns (such as comments on a proposal). Was this as intended?

For the rest, I chose to use largely words from the proposal itself, when it provided such words. Obviously, only in those cases where I believed the situation to really be as described. But I could have chosen to write some of the answers in my own words, as well. This seemed unnecessary in cases where a clear piece of text was already provided.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: individual-proposal-assessment-parameters-v02.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 45568 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150118/e7923e1d/individual-proposal-assessment-parameters-v02-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------


Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150118/e7923e1d/signature-0001.asc>