I also support Milton's proposal .. In fact, I suggest that all ICG members, to the extent possible/feasible, contribute to all assessment steps of all proposals .. This diversity in the level of involvement and knowledge is useful .. I'm not sure how we plan to carry out the assessment but I believe it would be best to discuss on the mailing list .. I believe this would ensure equal benefiting from all available information and all shared views before reaching a consensus view .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 6:21 PM To: Lynn St.Amour Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG I support Milton,s. Views since the assessment process should not be merely done by those who developed the proposal Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Jan 2015, at 23:39, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:
I like and support Milton's proposal. It will help us move the process forward while providing appropriate "oversight" of our reviews.
Lynn
On Jan 9, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
I find myself in the middle ground on this discussion.
I don't think it is appropriate for people who were actively engaged in developing a proposal, and who come only from the affected operational community, to be the ONLY ones evaluating it for the ICG as a whole. That lack of objectivity will not have the legitimacy we need.
On the other hand, I think it is important for someone who understands how the proposal evolved and why certain decisions were made to be present during the evaluation. So I would call for both types of parties to play a role in the initial evaluation, rather than excluding one or the other.
--MM
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 7:48 PM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG
I have an alternative suggestion, that the ICG members from the proposal's community could carry out the assessment as required in Step I, and document thoroughly and specifically how the proposal satisfies the given criteria (i.e. A1/2/3 and B1/2/3). This is something that can be done much more readily and thoroughly (IMHO) by ICG members who already understand the proposal fully.
This initial assessment (to be produced by say 30 Jan) would then be
reviewed by the rest of the ICG, and discussed in detail during the face-face meeting on Feb 6/7 in Singapore.
And I assume Step I will have some kind of formal "sign off" by the ICG as a whole before we move on to Step II (whether we do that in Singapore or later).
Does that make sense?
Paul.
________________________________________________________________ ________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
On 7 Jan 2015, at 8:58 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Thank you, Jari.
It would be great if we could get some volunteers to conduct Step I
of the finalization process <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana- transition-assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf> for this proposal, say within the next 2 weeks. Please respond to the list if you're willing to conduct this assessment.
Thanks, Alissa
On Jan 6, 2015, at 9:25 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
Dear all,
As you know, the IETF has been working on the protocol parameters aspects of the transition. We created the IANAPLAN working group, developed a proposed response, and held community discussions. And of course, there has been a lot of past evolution in this space as well.
This part of the process is coming to an end from our side. Our steering group, the IESG, approved the proposed response on December 18, and after some minor editorial changes, the document has been formally approved today, January 6.
The link to our proposal is below, and we look forward to working with the ICG and other communities on the next steps. We are committed to ensuring a good outcome for the Internet in this topic.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09
Jari Arkko
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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