Re[2]: [Cyrillicgp] New version of "Proposal..." (draft) for comments

Whether the Dusan's structure can to be combined with the requirements that have been set out in "Template for Proposal..."?

Can we change the format? For my part, I appeal for support for the format, which offered Dusan.

I apologize if not precisely gave definition to a some nuances of the situation.

4) but I didn't want to make all the changes to the text until it has received proposals from members of the panel. Dusan did it.

Dear all,

It's mine fault that I am probably (again) on the plain during the time of conference call, and I want to apologize for not being there for the second time.

But mine apologies will be filled with this long mail to all of You. I will try to make some suggestions, trying to solve our "productiveness" for almost a year.

Starting with some simple results and facts so far:

1. Our proposal was rejected

2. We need more participants

3. We need to work

4. Possible effects of our fail - no new cc or gTLD on Cyrillic script

Therefor I think we need different approach - this one was not productive.

In the attach You can find the document which I call MFR (Minimum Facts Repertoire) needed for Integration Panel approval. It's a document based entirely on current Proposal...

Why I did it? Well:

Structure of the current Proposal... did not follow all, or missed some rules that was written in Sarmad's first document (also in attach).

We raised some good points too early, f.e. Cyrillic - Old Church Slavonic variant. Why early? Because we can add those points (some of them are tasks) in the future, when we finish ANY job here, on "basic" Cyrillic.

Also, we must be aware that we are doing things under existing MSR-2, and our job is NOT what was in Proposal... (quote):

118. The Cyrillic Generation Panel have aim – forming recommendations for current and future versions of the MSR and, as final result, forming of LGR.

This is not our task nor aim. There is a procedure for shaping MSR-3, which is not the aim of our work. Our aim is well described in full name of this doc>

Proposal for the Generation Panel (GP) for the Cyrillic Script Label Generation Ruleset (LGR) for the Root Zone . It's about making rules for root zone, not proposing anything for MSR.

Even if it's somehow our task, it cannot be our primary task or obligatory thing, and we do not need this as a statement with obligation for us in Proposal... which we can, or cannot fulfill.

Of course, there is a lot of text in current Proposal... Mine version is more-less without text. Text is needed in MFR.

Personally, I would like to avoid history (we are not historians) and as I proposed in MFR, it can be written in last paragraph.

We are not here to show ICANN our historic roots, how good is Cyrillic, or something else - we are here to do our job. I hope that this work is not about politics, history or culture.

Strongly suggest that You look at Work plan. I made minor changes, but not enough - we need to say precisely when and what we are going to do. Keep in mind that our work plan can be changed, in collaboration with IP during the work, if something occurs (maybe second script for our work - Old Church Slavonic variant).

Also, if we need F2F meetings - we need to plan this also. You can find two planed F2F meetings in MFR.

According to all of this, I would like to hear Your opinion about this doc. Sorry, I didn't have the time to put some wording and labels. On the other hand, I think that Vladimir and Dmitry are far more better than me in English, so they can put some text in doc, if You all think that it's ok.

Also, I would like to hear Sarmad's opinion on the doc, its structure and what we can do to make this MFR better.

@Yuriy - we need to reset things. Your work so far was great, big and very good, all congrats from my side, but we need a work done not only by You.

Let us do something. And best thing is that we will have (I hope) some fresh blood who will add some more spices to our work.

@all - let's make our Proposal with necessary minimum, so we can FINALLY start our work.

With deep respect and regards to all of You, and wishes for fruitful discussion on the conference call,

p.s. - if You find MFR useful and good start point, I will provide editable version (doc).

I am sorry but I have trouble to understand this paragraph, particularly: "I suspect that took into account all of the IP's comments. In particular, I didn't touch working plan, but this doesn't mean that I don't agree with the suggestions of the IP. We are waiting for relevant proposal." So, the plan was not changed because you agree with it, or because of suggestions not yet incorporated in it? Double negatives are complicated.