Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal
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<http://internetgovernance.org/>
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 <http://internetgovernance.org/>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, The deadline of 15 September CAN NIOT MET if we should respect all the required actions including OVERLAPPING between CWG and CCWG and respecting sufficient commenting period from public with at least 30 days of length. The accountability for transition SHOULD STEMS from CCWG Work Stream 1 and not limited to CWG which is exclusively address naming accountability AND in addition there are conflict of approach between CCWG and CWG on the matter Regards KAVOUSS 2015-01-15 17:59 GMT+01:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Milton, I suggested Jan 26 because our next call is on Jan 28. That way we can devote a good part of that call to starting the discussion about the protocol parameters proposal. We can continue that discussion in Singapore. Since Step I of our finalization process involves evaluating the proposals individually <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...>, I think we can and should proceed with that step for the proposals we do receive. We’re aiming to get that done by Feb 15 according to our process. Of course, the names work taking place right now is very important and folks who are heavily involved in that might not have as much time to review the protocol parameters proposal. I think that’s perfectly fine, since we have a couple people on the hook to do a thorough review of that proposal and bring their evaluations back to the rest of us. Best, Alissa On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> 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
We should proceed as far as we can with the responses we have received. We should do this at a reasonably agressive pace. Some reasons: - We owe it to the communities that worked hard to meet the deadlines. We need to keep a positive relationship with them goong forward. They need to stay motivated. We should not frustrate them by appearing to be tardy. - We gain time for discussing clarifications and improvements of the responses we already have with the respective communities. - It makes sense get as much work out of the way as we can as early as possible to free up capacity for the later stages. - We need to exercise our own machinery as much as we can. So I wholeheartedly support proceeding as Alissa sugests. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 15.01.2015, at 19:08, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi Milton,
I suggested Jan 26 because our next call is on Jan 28. That way we can devote a good part of that call to starting the discussion about the protocol parameters proposal. We can continue that discussion in Singapore.
Since Step I of our finalization process involves evaluating the proposals individually <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...>, I think we can and should proceed with that step for the proposals we do receive. We’re aiming to get that done by Feb 15 according to our process.
Of course, the names work taking place right now is very important and folks who are heavily involved in that might not have as much time to review the protocol parameters proposal. I think that’s perfectly fine, since we have a couple people on the hook to do a thorough review of that proposal and bring their evaluations back to the rest of us.
Best, Alissa
On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I agree with Alissa, Daniel and Joe's reasoning. And, I fully support proceeding as we had previously agreed and as Alissa has outlined. Best, Lynn On Jan 16, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
We should proceed as far as we can with the responses we have received. We should do this at a reasonably agressive pace.
Some reasons:
- We owe it to the communities that worked hard to meet the deadlines. We need to keep a positive relationship with them goong forward. They need to stay motivated. We should not frustrate them by appearing to be tardy.
- We gain time for discussing clarifications and improvements of the responses we already have with the respective communities.
- It makes sense get as much work out of the way as we can as early as possible to free up capacity for the later stages.
- We need to exercise our own machinery as much as we can.
So I wholeheartedly support proceeding as Alissa sugests.
Daniel
--- Sent from a handheld device.
On 15.01.2015, at 19:08, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi Milton,
I suggested Jan 26 because our next call is on Jan 28. That way we can devote a good part of that call to starting the discussion about the protocol parameters proposal. We can continue that discussion in Singapore.
Since Step I of our finalization process involves evaluating the proposals individually <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...>, I think we can and should proceed with that step for the proposals we do receive. We’re aiming to get that done by Feb 15 according to our process.
Of course, the names work taking place right now is very important and folks who are heavily involved in that might not have as much time to review the protocol parameters proposal. I think that’s perfectly fine, since we have a couple people on the hook to do a thorough review of that proposal and bring their evaluations back to the rest of us.
Best, Alissa
On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> 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
_______________________________________________ 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
No disagreement on substantive matters here. I am merely pointing out that our own timeline says that we will develop a draft response to the proposals by March 13. So while we can begin discussion of the protocols (and, perhaps now, the numbers) proposal(s) on January 28, I see no reason to impose a Jan 26 deadline on _all_ reviews of the protocols proposal. I agree with Daniel that we need to "exercise" our review mechanisms as soon as possible. What I am concerned about is an arbitrary deadline on the reviews. Although I do agree with Alissa that it would be nice if everyone she designated could finish a complete review by Jan 26, I don't think that is either necessary or likely. I suspect very strongly that we will be going back to reviewing that proposal after our Jan 28 and Feb 6 discussions.
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 8:41 AM To: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal
I agree with Alissa, Daniel and Joe's reasoning. And, I fully support proceeding as we had previously agreed and as Alissa has outlined.
Best, Lynn
On Jan 16, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
We should proceed as far as we can with the responses we have received. We should do this at a reasonably agressive pace.
Some reasons:
- We owe it to the communities that worked hard to meet the deadlines. We need to keep a positive relationship with them goong forward. They need to stay motivated. We should not frustrate them by appearing to be tardy.
- We gain time for discussing clarifications and improvements of the responses we already have with the respective communities.
- It makes sense get as much work out of the way as we can as early as possible to free up capacity for the later stages.
- We need to exercise our own machinery as much as we can.
So I wholeheartedly support proceeding as Alissa sugests.
Daniel
--- Sent from a handheld device.
On 15.01.2015, at 19:08, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi Milton,
I suggested Jan 26 because our next call is on Jan 28. That way we can devote a good part of that call to starting the discussion about the protocol parameters proposal. We can continue that discussion in Singapore.
Since Step I of our finalization process involves evaluating the proposals individually <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition- assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf>, I think we can and should proceed with that step for the proposals we do receive. We're aiming to get that done by Feb 15 according to our process.
Of course, the names work taking place right now is very important and folks who are heavily involved in that might not have as much time to review the protocol parameters proposal. I think that's perfectly fine, since we have a couple people on the hook to do a thorough review of that proposal and bring their evaluations back to the rest of us.
Best, Alissa
On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Agree with Milton views. There should be a practicality to do the job rather than rush. Tks Kavouss 2015-01-16 16:19 GMT+01:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
No disagreement on substantive matters here.
I am merely pointing out that our own timeline says that we will develop a draft response to the proposals by March 13. So while we can begin discussion of the protocols (and, perhaps now, the numbers) proposal(s) on January 28, I see no reason to impose a Jan 26 deadline on _all_ reviews of the protocols proposal.
I agree with Daniel that we need to "exercise" our review mechanisms as soon as possible. What I am concerned about is an arbitrary deadline on the reviews. Although I do agree with Alissa that it would be nice if everyone she designated could finish a complete review by Jan 26, I don't think that is either necessary or likely. I suspect very strongly that we will be going back to reviewing that proposal after our Jan 28 and Feb 6 discussions.
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 8:41 AM To: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal
I agree with Alissa, Daniel and Joe's reasoning. And, I fully support proceeding as we had previously agreed and as Alissa has outlined.
Best, Lynn
On Jan 16, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
We should proceed as far as we can with the responses we have received. We should do this at a reasonably agressive pace.
Some reasons:
- We owe it to the communities that worked hard to meet the deadlines. We need to keep a positive relationship with them goong forward. They need to stay motivated. We should not frustrate them by appearing to be tardy.
- We gain time for discussing clarifications and improvements of the responses we already have with the respective communities.
- It makes sense get as much work out of the way as we can as early as possible to free up capacity for the later stages.
- We need to exercise our own machinery as much as we can.
So I wholeheartedly support proceeding as Alissa sugests.
Daniel
--- Sent from a handheld device.
On 15.01.2015, at 19:08, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi Milton,
I suggested Jan 26 because our next call is on Jan 28. That way we can devote a good part of that call to starting the discussion about the protocol parameters proposal. We can continue that discussion in Singapore.
Since Step I of our finalization process involves evaluating the proposals individually < https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition- assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf>, I think we can and should proceed with that step for the proposals we do receive. We're aiming to get that done by Feb 15 according to our process.
Of course, the names work taking place right now is very important and folks who are heavily involved in that might not have as much time to review the protocol parameters proposal. I think that's perfectly fine, since we have a couple people on the hook to do a thorough review of that proposal and bring their evaluations back to the rest of us.
Best, Alissa
On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Milton,
On Jan 16, 2015, at 7:19 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
No disagreement on substantive matters here.
I am merely pointing out that our own timeline says that we will develop a draft response to the proposals by March 13.
Yes, but that also factors in time for the operational communities to respond to our evaluations, which is why we set down Feb 13 as a target for that. In any event I don't think we'll have trouble staying roughly on the schedule we outlined for protocol parameters. Alissa
So while we can begin discussion of the protocols (and, perhaps now, the numbers) proposal(s) on January 28, I see no reason to impose a Jan 26 deadline on _all_ reviews of the protocols proposal.
I agree with Daniel that we need to "exercise" our review mechanisms as soon as possible. What I am concerned about is an arbitrary deadline on the reviews. Although I do agree with Alissa that it would be nice if everyone she designated could finish a complete review by Jan 26, I don't think that is either necessary or likely. I suspect very strongly that we will be going back to reviewing that proposal after our Jan 28 and Feb 6 discussions.
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 8:41 AM To: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal
I agree with Alissa, Daniel and Joe's reasoning. And, I fully support proceeding as we had previously agreed and as Alissa has outlined.
Best, Lynn
On Jan 16, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
We should proceed as far as we can with the responses we have received. We should do this at a reasonably agressive pace.
Some reasons:
- We owe it to the communities that worked hard to meet the deadlines. We need to keep a positive relationship with them goong forward. They need to stay motivated. We should not frustrate them by appearing to be tardy.
- We gain time for discussing clarifications and improvements of the responses we already have with the respective communities.
- It makes sense get as much work out of the way as we can as early as possible to free up capacity for the later stages.
- We need to exercise our own machinery as much as we can.
So I wholeheartedly support proceeding as Alissa sugests.
Daniel
--- Sent from a handheld device.
On 15.01.2015, at 19:08, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi Milton,
I suggested Jan 26 because our next call is on Jan 28. That way we can devote a good part of that call to starting the discussion about the protocol parameters proposal. We can continue that discussion in Singapore.
Since Step I of our finalization process involves evaluating the proposals individually <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition- assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf>, I think we can and should proceed with that step for the proposals we do receive. We're aiming to get that done by Feb 15 according to our process.
Of course, the names work taking place right now is very important and folks who are heavily involved in that might not have as much time to review the protocol parameters proposal. I think that's perfectly fine, since we have a couple people on the hook to do a thorough review of that proposal and bring their evaluations back to the rest of us.
Best, Alissa
On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> 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
_______________________________________________ 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
+1 This strengthened my earlier mail.Mary Uduma On Friday, January 16, 2015 2:41 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote: I agree with Alissa, Daniel and Joe's reasoning. And, I fully support proceeding as we had previously agreed and as Alissa has outlined. Best, Lynn On Jan 16, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
We should proceed as far as we can with the responses we have received. We should do this at a reasonably agressive pace.
Some reasons:
- We owe it to the communities that worked hard to meet the deadlines. We need to keep a positive relationship with them goong forward. They need to stay motivated. We should not frustrate them by appearing to be tardy.
- We gain time for discussing clarifications and improvements of the responses we already have with the respective communities.
- It makes sense get as much work out of the way as we can as early as possible to free up capacity for the later stages.
- We need to exercise our own machinery as much as we can.
So I wholeheartedly support proceeding as Alissa sugests.
Daniel
--- Sent from a handheld device.
On 15.01.2015, at 19:08, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi Milton,
I suggested Jan 26 because our next call is on Jan 28. That way we can devote a good part of that call to starting the discussion about the protocol parameters proposal. We can continue that discussion in Singapore.
Since Step I of our finalization process involves evaluating the proposals individually <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finaliz...>, I think we can and should proceed with that step for the proposals we do receive. We’re aiming to get that done by Feb 15 according to our process.
Of course, the names work taking place right now is very important and folks who are heavily involved in that might not have as much time to review the protocol parameters proposal. I think that’s perfectly fine, since we have a couple people on the hook to do a thorough review of that proposal and bring their evaluations back to the rest of us.
Best, Alissa
On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> 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
_______________________________________________ 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
FWIW I also agree with what Daniel and Alissa were saying. I think we need to get started on the evaluations. We have enough manpower to do some parallel processing, and it would be very, very good to show some progress in our next call and the ICANN meeting about this. FYI I have made some progress in filling out the template evaluation, and will soon have some initial drafty text for the team. I can say that it probably is a useful exercise to run the evaluation for the proposals that we have, we will learn a lot about doing those evaluations. We should be able to progress at least on the individual proposal level, as well as numbers - parameters compatibility front. Jari
I support an early start, which can still accommodate later comments .. Thanks Jari .. I'm currently reading the protocols proposal and looking forward to contributing to the discussion of the filled template .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 11:07 AM To: Mary Uduma Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal FWIW I also agree with what Daniel and Alissa were saying. I think we need to get started on the evaluations. We have enough manpower to do some parallel processing, and it would be very, very good to show some progress in our next call and the ICANN meeting about this. FYI I have made some progress in filling out the template evaluation, and will soon have some initial drafty text for the team. I can say that it probably is a useful exercise to run the evaluation for the proposals that we have, we will learn a lot about doing those evaluations. We should be able to progress at least on the individual proposal level, as well as numbers - parameters compatibility front. Jari
participants (9)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Jari Arkko -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lynn St.Amour -
Manal Ismail -
Mary Uduma -
Milton L Mueller