Dear All, I wish to inform you that on the unfounded bureaucratic ground ,people wishes to avoid or prevent receiving any comments from me on the most crucial and most fundamental issue of ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG . However, I continue to comments and do in no way accept that because I am not the member of that group ( not included in the Thomas Schneider letter to the chair of that group my sincere volunteer to fully and actively participate as GAC member from Asia Pacific which is the most largest ICANN geographical region with more than 75 countries or geographical dependent territories , my volunteer was rejected by the chair and the crew ). This is not fair nor acceptable I have asked to be the member of that Group from July 2014 in multiple communications to the former GAC Chsair and the Secretary. We need to encourage those who wish to contribute and not put an obstacle in using purely bureaucratic element that participants or Lisison can not actively contribute Regards Kavouss 2014-12-12 11:39 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Alissa, Thank you for your reply I am travelling now as soon as I got back to night will look art your revised text. Tks have a nice day Kavouss
2014-12-12 11:21 GMT+01:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:
Thanks Alissa,
I'm fine with your amendments. Re the definition of “broad public support” I agree to the plain English reading (“most people and communities that we hear from are in favor”).
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*From:* Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 12:35 AM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call
Hi Kavouss,
I’ve attached a version that addresses some of your comments. For the rest, my responses are below.
In step 2, you asked: What do we mean by “the differences between the communities and the related IANA functions”?
From my perspective the communities are different — they operate differently, they document things differently, the IANA functions that they make use of cover different registries, they rely on IANA in different ways (e.g., 1000s of change requests from the IETF per year versus many fewer IP address delegations), etc. So their proposals will reflect these differences.
In step 2, you asked: What are the basis to make such accountability assessment without receiving output from CWG abnd CCWG?
The proposal from CWG IANA will be part of the basis for the accountability assessment (along with the proposals from the IETF and RIR communities). On the call there was support for relying on the CWG IANA as the voice of the names community, including relying on their choice to leverage the CCWG Accountability work or not.
In step 2, you asked: Do we mean interoperability since workability has no sense here?
In RFP Section IV we ask the communities to provide the following: "Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to established arrangements."
That is the sense in which we are using the term workability.
In step 3, you said: The minimum time should not be less that 30 days
This step is scoped for more than 90 days, so I think this is covered.
In step 4, you said: I agree with Alissa to repolce “ broad public support” with the language that she suggested which is more clear and stragight forward
I was not suggesting any changes to language in this section. I was just explaining in email what I think “broad public support” means.
Best, Alissa
------------------------------
On Dec 11, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Subject: **Fwd: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call* *Date: *December 11, 2014 at 9:08:00 AM PST *To: *Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Please find attached my comments Kavouss Pls send it to others as I failed to do that Kavouss
2014-12-11 17:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> :
Language in section 5 now addresses all concerns I have raised.
The rest of the document now looks reasonable as well. I agree with the new intro, even in the light of my 'ceterum censeo'. ;-)
Thank you Alissa.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
<proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc,commented by kavouss.docx>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------ Hi Kavouss,
I’ve attached a version that addresses some of your comments. For the rest, my responses are below.
In step 2, you asked: What do we mean by “the differences between the communities and the related IANA functions”?
From my perspective the communities are different — they operate differently, they document things differently, the IANA functions that they make use of cover different registries, they rely on IANA in different ways (e.g., 1000s of change requests from the IETF per year versus many fewer IP address delegations), etc. So their proposals will reflect these differences.
In step 2, you asked: What are the basis to make such accountability assessment without receiving output from CWG abnd CCWG?
The proposal from CWG IANA will be part of the basis for the accountability assessment (along with the proposals from the IETF and RIR communities). On the call there was support for relying on the CWG IANA as the voice of the names community, including relying on their choice to leverage the CCWG Accountability work or not.
In step 2, you asked: Do we mean interoperability since workability has no sense here?
In RFP Section IV we ask the communities to provide the following: "Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to established arrangements."
That is the sense in which we are using the term workability.
In step 3, you said: The minimum time should not be less that 30 days
This step is scoped for more than 90 days, so I think this is covered.
In step 4, you said: I agree with Alissa to repolce “ broad public support” with the language that she suggested which is more clear and stragight forward
I was not suggesting any changes to language in this section. I was just explaining in email what I think “broad public support” means.
Best, Alissa
On Dec 11, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call Date: December 11, 2014 at 9:08:00 AM PST To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Please find attached my comments Kavouss Pls send it to others as I failed to do that Kavouss
2014-12-11 17:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <
daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:
Language in section 5 now addresses all concerns I have raised.
The rest of the document now looks reasonable as well. I agree with
the new intro, even in the light of my 'ceterum censeo'. ;-)
Thank you Alissa.
Daniel
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
<proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc,commented by kavouss.docx>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg