If we had one proposal reviewed by Singapore it could be a test of our review process and help flesh out any issues we see in our intake/review process. It would not help us progress very far towards assembling a proposal, but might help us streamline how we review further proposals? Agree though on not jeopardizing the work needed in the names community.

On 1/15/2015 10:43 AM, Milton L Mueller 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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg