Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
Would also be fine with "potential incompatability"... Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Russ Mundy [mundy@tislabs.com] Received: Monday, 09 Feb 2015, 12:52PM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com] CC: Russ Mundy [mundy@tislabs.com]; internal-cg@icann.org [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP I too would be fine with a multi-step process if that’s needed. One of the reasons I used the term “incompatibility” in my proposed alternative wording is based on what our charter says we’re supposed to be doing - I’m not really certain what the difference is between “inconsistency” and “incompatibility” but our charter uses “compatibility" but does not include the term “consistency". Russ M On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:11 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I would agree with Milton's observation. We are currently observing an inconsistency, not necessarily an incompatibility. If they wish to resolve the inconsistency, then there is no need to get to the question of incompatibility. An absolute incompatibility would be if one wanted a transfer of IP and the other opposed a transfer. Both seem to be happy with the transfer with a question of when it should occur. Would there be a concern in the IETF if the transfer occurs early?
Joe On 2/8/2015 10:55 PM, Russ Mundy wrote:
On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them?
Alissa,
Thanks for pulling the discussion together. I wouldn't object to the current wording of the question but think that the "question" paragraph could be a bit clearer so let me suggest the following para replace above:
The ICG perceives that the protocol parameters and numbers proposals are incompatible on this point, i.e., the numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. Would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them or describe how the current proposals are compatible?
Russ
_______________________________________________ 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
Although a bit late, as I've seen that the question is already sent, but just to note that I'm also fine with the suggested multi-step process, happy with incompatibility as sent (or potential incompatibility) .. I'm not a native speaker, but hope this makes senses .. I believe the proposals doesn't necessarily have to be consistent (in the sense of proposing exactly the same thing) but have to be compatible (in the sense of proposing things that could be implemented simultaneously) .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 7:17 AM To: mundy@tislabs.com Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP Would also be fine with "potential incompatability"... Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Russ Mundy [mundy@tislabs.com] Received: Monday, 09 Feb 2015, 12:52PM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com] CC: Russ Mundy [mundy@tislabs.com]; internal-cg@icann.org [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP I too would be fine with a multi-step process if that’s needed. One of the reasons I used the term “incompatibility” in my proposed alternative wording is based on what our charter says we’re supposed to be doing - I’m not really certain what the difference is between “inconsistency” and “incompatibility” but our charter uses “compatibility" but does not include the term “consistency". Russ M On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:11 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I would agree with Milton's observation. We are currently observing an inconsistency, not necessarily an incompatibility. If they wish to resolve the inconsistency, then there is no need to get to the question of incompatibility. An absolute incompatibility would be if one wanted a transfer of IP and the other opposed a transfer. Both seem to be happy with the transfer with a question of when it should occur. Would there be a concern in the IETF if the transfer occurs early?
Joe On 2/8/2015 10:55 PM, Russ Mundy wrote:
On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them?
Alissa,
Thanks for pulling the discussion together. I wouldn't object to the current wording of the question but think that the "question" paragraph could be a bit clearer so let me suggest the following para replace above:
The ICG perceives that the protocol parameters and numbers proposals are incompatible on this point, i.e., the numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. Would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them or describe how the current proposals are compatible?
Russ
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Manal and everyone else for your comments. I sent the original version of the email since it seemed to have good support in the group. I confirmed with Russ Mundy off-list that he was ok with this. I’ve asked the secretariat to post this to our web site. Alissa On Feb 9, 2015, at 1:50 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Although a bit late, as I've seen that the question is already sent, but just to note that I'm also fine with the suggested multi-step process, happy with incompatibility as sent (or potential incompatibility) .. I'm not a native speaker, but hope this makes senses .. I believe the proposals doesn't necessarily have to be consistent (in the sense of proposing exactly the same thing) but have to be compatible (in the sense of proposing things that could be implemented simultaneously) ..
Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 7:17 AM To: mundy@tislabs.com Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
Would also be fine with "potential incompatability"...
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Mundy [mundy@tislabs.com] Received: Monday, 09 Feb 2015, 12:52PM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com] CC: Russ Mundy [mundy@tislabs.com]; internal-cg@icann.org [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
I too would be fine with a multi-step process if that’s needed.
One of the reasons I used the term “incompatibility” in my proposed alternative wording is based on what our charter says we’re supposed to be doing - I’m not really certain what the difference is between “inconsistency” and “incompatibility” but our charter uses “compatibility" but does not include the term “consistency".
Russ M
On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:11 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I would agree with Milton's observation. We are currently observing an inconsistency, not necessarily an incompatibility. If they wish to resolve the inconsistency, then there is no need to get to the question of incompatibility. An absolute incompatibility would be if one wanted a transfer of IP and the other opposed a transfer. Both seem to be happy with the transfer with a question of when it should occur. Would there be a concern in the IETF if the transfer occurs early?
Joe On 2/8/2015 10:55 PM, Russ Mundy wrote:
On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them?
Alissa,
Thanks for pulling the discussion together. I wouldn't object to the current wording of the question but think that the "question" paragraph could be a bit clearer so let me suggest the following para replace above:
The ICG perceives that the protocol parameters and numbers proposals are incompatible on this point, i.e., the numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. Would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them or describe how the current proposals are compatible?
Russ
_______________________________________________ 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
I am sorry for being very late also, did not get to read the thread on time.I confirm my support, though belated. Mary Uduma On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 3:35 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote: Thanks Manal and everyone else for your comments. I sent the original version of the email since it seemed to have good support in the group. I confirmed with Russ Mundy off-list that he was ok with this. I’ve asked the secretariat to post this to our web site. Alissa On Feb 9, 2015, at 1:50 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Although a bit late, as I've seen that the question is already sent, but just to note that I'm also fine with the suggested multi-step process, happy with incompatibility as sent (or potential incompatibility) .. I'm not a native speaker, but hope this makes senses .. I believe the proposals doesn't necessarily have to be consistent (in the sense of proposing exactly the same thing) but have to be compatible (in the sense of proposing things that could be implemented simultaneously) ..
Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 7:17 AM To: mundy@tislabs.com Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
Would also be fine with "potential incompatability"...
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Mundy [mundy@tislabs.com] Received: Monday, 09 Feb 2015, 12:52PM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com] CC: Russ Mundy [mundy@tislabs.com]; internal-cg@icann.org [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
I too would be fine with a multi-step process if that’s needed.
One of the reasons I used the term “incompatibility” in my proposed alternative wording is based on what our charter says we’re supposed to be doing - I’m not really certain what the difference is between “inconsistency” and “incompatibility” but our charter uses “compatibility" but does not include the term “consistency".
Russ M
On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:11 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I would agree with Milton's observation. We are currently observing an inconsistency, not necessarily an incompatibility. If they wish to resolve the inconsistency, then there is no need to get to the question of incompatibility. An absolute incompatibility would be if one wanted a transfer of IP and the other opposed a transfer. Both seem to be happy with the transfer with a question of when it should occur. Would there be a concern in the IETF if the transfer occurs early?
Joe On 2/8/2015 10:55 PM, Russ Mundy wrote:
On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them?
Alissa,
Thanks for pulling the discussion together. I wouldn't object to the current wording of the question but think that the "question" paragraph could be a bit clearer so let me suggest the following para replace above:
The ICG perceives that the protocol parameters and numbers proposals are incompatible on this point, i.e., the numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. Would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them or describe how the current proposals are compatible?
Russ
_______________________________________________ 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
Announcement has been posted: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-02-09-en On Feb 9, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Mary Uduma <mnuduma@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am sorry for being very late also, did not get to read the thread on time. I confirm my support, though belated.
Mary Uduma
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 3:35 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Thanks Manal and everyone else for your comments. I sent the original version of the email since it seemed to have good support in the group. I confirmed with Russ Mundy off-list that he was ok with this.
I’ve asked the secretariat to post this to our web site.
Alissa
On Feb 9, 2015, at 1:50 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Although a bit late, as I've seen that the question is already sent, but just to note that I'm also fine with the suggested multi-step process, happy with incompatibility as sent (or potential incompatibility) .. I'm not a native speaker, but hope this makes senses .. I believe the proposals doesn't necessarily have to be consistent (in the sense of proposing exactly the same thing) but have to be compatible (in the sense of proposing things that could be implemented simultaneously) ..
Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 7:17 AM To: mundy@tislabs.com Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
Would also be fine with "potential incompatability"...
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Mundy [mundy@tislabs.com] Received: Monday, 09 Feb 2015, 12:52PM To: joseph alhadeff [joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com] CC: Russ Mundy [mundy@tislabs.com]; internal-cg@icann.org [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question for IANAPLAN and CRISP
I too would be fine with a multi-step process if that’s needed.
One of the reasons I used the term “incompatibility” in my proposed alternative wording is based on what our charter says we’re supposed to be doing - I’m not really certain what the difference is between “inconsistency” and “incompatibility” but our charter uses “compatibility" but does not include the term “consistency".
Russ M
On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:11 PM, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I would agree with Milton's observation. We are currently observing an inconsistency, not necessarily an incompatibility. If they wish to resolve the inconsistency, then there is no need to get to the question of incompatibility. An absolute incompatibility would be if one wanted a transfer of IP and the other opposed a transfer. Both seem to be happy with the transfer with a question of when it should occur. Would there be a concern in the IETF if the transfer occurs early?
Joe On 2/8/2015 10:55 PM, Russ Mundy wrote:
On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
The numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. If these aspects of the proposals are perceived as incompatible would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them?
Alissa,
Thanks for pulling the discussion together. I wouldn't object to the current wording of the question but think that the "question" paragraph could be a bit clearer so let me suggest the following para replace above:
The ICG perceives that the protocol parameters and numbers proposals are incompatible on this point, i.e., the numbers proposal sees these changes as a requirement of the transition and the protocols parameters proposal does not. Would the numbers and protocol parameters communities be willing to modify their proposals to reconcile them or describe how the current proposals are compatible?
Russ
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (4)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Joseph Alhadeff -
Manal Ismail -
Mary Uduma