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>
Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 11:15
To: Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>
Cc: ICG List <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> 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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg