to the extent appropriate? It is not unreasonable for us to ask that they take account of what's already been drafted, that doesn't bind them to it merely informs them of the potential benefits of drafting that could avoid conflicts. On 2/24/2015 3:49 PM, michael niebel wrote:
The phrasing - although softened e.g by "to the extent possible" - would still imply that it is the "latecomer" community that would have to adapt to the "first mover" proposals to assure consistency.
Best Michael
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:42 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> wrote:
The phrasing could be adjusted to assure the tone is advisory. Something along the lines of... ICG would welcome the names community's review of existing community proposals and other related work of the ICG in preparation of its proposal to assure, to the extent possible, both consistency and avoidance of conflicts with existing proposals. Such a review for consistency and conflict avoidance process within the Names proposal development process would enable us to assemble the final proposal more expeditiously. On 2/24/2015 1:24 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
Agreed, this could be received as the ICG “advising” the CWG on its output.
They have the RFP, and we can safely assume this operational community’s response will be larger and more complex than the others.
Thanks—
J.
From: michael niebel <fmniebel@gmail.com <mailto:fmniebel@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 11:15 To: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> Cc: ICG List <internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Timeline and proposal finalization process updates
Daniel,
I am not sure whether the addition that you propose - although factually correct - could not be interpreted as inappropriately prescriptive through the backdoor.
Michael
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote:
The actions before we receive the CWG response are very reasonable and I support them. I am ambivalent as far as a public comment period is concerned.
I still believe we should tell the CWG that we are prepared to work as expeditiously as possible once we receive their proposal and ask them to let us know if there are any changes in their delivery date.
I also propose to add this to what we say: "The time that the ICG will need to produce its output will be shortest if the CWG response is simple, has little or no dependencies on other work and is compatible with the responses already received from the protocol parameters and numbers communities."
Daniel
On 23.02.15 18:22 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
... (1) What does the ICG plan to do before receiving the CWG proposal? (2) What does the ICG plan to do after receiving the CWG proposal? ...
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg