This all looks good to me, although I suspect for the next few weeks those of us on the names side remain quite busy. I agree with Daniel's suggestion: a good reminder to be open about our activities. I have been involved in the cross-community working group developing a names proposal as a participant on behalf of my employer (Nominet, .uk) and as a liaison for the ICG. I am also a participant in the CCWG-ICANN Accountability on behalf of Nominet. I have not engaged in the number or protocol parameter processes at all. Best Martin -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley Sent: 07 January 2015 23:25 To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thinking about the assessment process I was heavily involved in the protocol parameters response from the IETT. I have not been involved with the creation of the responses from the names or number communities beyond reading publicly available documents. Russ On Jan 7, 2015, at 3:31 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
I suggest that before we start the reviews each of us sends a message to this list describing their involvement, if any, in the development of proposals. This way all that is on record and we avoid accusations of hidden interests or actions.
For myself I can state that I have had no involvement with the proposals of the names and protocol parameters communities.
As a member of the RIPE community I have participated in the public discussion about the principles for the numbers proposal. As part of my job at the RIPE NCC I have provided advice to management about the development of the proposal. I have also worked actively within the RIR communities to explain the process and the work of the ICG.
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg