Thanks Alissa, I'm fine with your amendments. Re the definition of “broad public support” I agree to the plain English reading (“most people and communities that we hear from are in favor”). Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 12:35 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call Hi Kavouss, I’ve attached a version that addresses some of your comments. For the rest, my responses are below. In step 2, you asked: What do we mean by “the differences between the communities and the related IANA functions”?

From my perspective the communities are different — they operate differently, they document things differently, the IANA functions that they make use of cover different registries, they rely on IANA in different ways (e.g., 1000s of change requests from the IETF per year versus many fewer IP address delegations), etc. So their proposals will reflect these differences.

In step 2, you asked: What are the basis to make such accountability assessment without receiving output from CWG abnd CCWG? The proposal from CWG IANA will be part of the basis for the accountability assessment (along with the proposals from the IETF and RIR communities). On the call there was support for relying on the CWG IANA as the voice of the names community, including relying on their choice to leverage the CCWG Accountability work or not. In step 2, you asked: Do we mean interoperability since workability has no sense here? In RFP Section IV we ask the communities to provide the following: "Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to established arrangements." That is the sense in which we are using the term workability. In step 3, you said: The minimum time should not be less that 30 days This step is scoped for more than 90 days, so I think this is covered. In step 4, you said: I agree with Alissa to repolce “ broad public support” with the language that she suggested which is more clear and stragight forward I was not suggesting any changes to language in this section. I was just explaining in email what I think “broad public support” means. Best, Alissa -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Dec 11, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call Date: December 11, 2014 at 9:08:00 AM PST To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Please find attached my comments Kavouss Pls send it to others as I failed to do that Kavouss 2014-12-11 17:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>: Language in section 5 now addresses all concerns I have raised. The rest of the document now looks reasonable as well. I agree with the new intro, even in the light of my 'ceterum censeo'. ;-) Thank you Alissa. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc,commented by kavouss.docx> _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Kavouss, I’ve attached a version that addresses some of your comments. For the rest, my responses are below. In step 2, you asked: What do we mean by “the differences between the communities and the related IANA functions”?

From my perspective the communities are different — they operate differently, they document things differently, the IANA functions that they make use of cover different registries, they rely on IANA in different ways (e.g., 1000s of change requests from the IETF per year versus many fewer IP address delegations), etc. So their proposals will reflect these differences.

In step 2, you asked: What are the basis to make such accountability assessment without receiving output from CWG abnd CCWG? The proposal from CWG IANA will be part of the basis for the accountability assessment (along with the proposals from the IETF and RIR communities). On the call there was support for relying on the CWG IANA as the voice of the names community, including relying on their choice to leverage the CCWG Accountability work or not. In step 2, you asked: Do we mean interoperability since workability has no sense here? In RFP Section IV we ask the communities to provide the following: "Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to established arrangements." That is the sense in which we are using the term workability. In step 3, you said: The minimum time should not be less that 30 days This step is scoped for more than 90 days, so I think this is covered. In step 4, you said: I agree with Alissa to repolce “ broad public support” with the language that she suggested which is more clear and stragight forward I was not suggesting any changes to language in this section. I was just explaining in email what I think “broad public support” means. Best, Alissa On Dec 11, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

...

From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call Date: December 11, 2014 at 9:08:00 AM PST To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>

Please find attached my comments Kavouss Pls send it to others as I failed to do that Kavouss

2014-12-11 17:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:

Language in section 5 now addresses all concerns I have raised.

The rest of the document now looks reasonable as well. I agree with the new intro, even in the light of my 'ceterum censeo'. ;-)

Thank you Alissa.

Daniel

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

<proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc,commented by kavouss.docx>

_______________________________________________ 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

Dear All, I wish to inform you that on the unfounded bureaucratic ground ,people wishes to avoid or prevent receiving any comments from me on the most crucial and most fundamental issue of ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG . However, I continue to comments and do in no way accept that because I am not the member of that group ( not included in the Thomas Schneider letter to the chair of that group my sincere volunteer to fully and actively participate as GAC member from Asia Pacific which is the most largest ICANN geographical region with more than 75 countries or geographical dependent territories , my volunteer was rejected by the chair and the crew ). This is not fair nor acceptable I have asked to be the member of that Group from July 2014 in multiple communications to the former GAC Chsair and the Secretary. We need to encourage those who wish to contribute and not put an obstacle in using purely bureaucratic element that participants or Lisison can not actively contribute Regards Kavouss 2014-12-12 11:39 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:

Dear Alissa, Thank you for your reply I am travelling now as soon as I got back to night will look art your revised text. Tks have a nice day Kavouss

2014-12-12 11:21 GMT+01:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:

...

Thanks Alissa,

I'm fine with your amendments. Re the definition of “broad public support” I agree to the plain English reading (“most people and communities that we hear from are in favor”).

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

*From:* Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 12:35 AM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call

Hi Kavouss,

I’ve attached a version that addresses some of your comments. For the rest, my responses are below.

In step 2, you asked: What do we mean by “the differences between the communities and the related IANA functions”?

From my perspective the communities are different — they operate differently, they document things differently, the IANA functions that they make use of cover different registries, they rely on IANA in different ways (e.g., 1000s of change requests from the IETF per year versus many fewer IP address delegations), etc. So their proposals will reflect these differences.

In step 2, you asked: What are the basis to make such accountability assessment without receiving output from CWG abnd CCWG?

The proposal from CWG IANA will be part of the basis for the accountability assessment (along with the proposals from the IETF and RIR communities). On the call there was support for relying on the CWG IANA as the voice of the names community, including relying on their choice to leverage the CCWG Accountability work or not.

In step 2, you asked: Do we mean interoperability since workability has no sense here?

In RFP Section IV we ask the communities to provide the following: "Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to established arrangements."

That is the sense in which we are using the term workability.

In step 3, you said: The minimum time should not be less that 30 days

This step is scoped for more than 90 days, so I think this is covered.

In step 4, you said: I agree with Alissa to repolce “ broad public support” with the language that she suggested which is more clear and stragight forward

I was not suggesting any changes to language in this section. I was just explaining in email what I think “broad public support” means.

Best, Alissa

------------------------------

On Dec 11, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Subject: **Fwd: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call* *Date: *December 11, 2014 at 9:08:00 AM PST *To: *Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>

Please find attached my comments Kavouss Pls send it to others as I failed to do that Kavouss

2014-12-11 17:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> :

...

Language in section 5 now addresses all concerns I have raised.

The rest of the document now looks reasonable as well. I agree with the new intro, even in the light of my 'ceterum censeo'. ;-)

Thank you Alissa.

Daniel

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

<proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc,commented by kavouss.docx>

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

------------------------------ Hi Kavouss,

I’ve attached a version that addresses some of your comments. For the rest, my responses are below.

In step 2, you asked: What do we mean by “the differences between the communities and the related IANA functions”?

From my perspective the communities are different — they operate differently, they document things differently, the IANA functions that they make use of cover different registries, they rely on IANA in different ways (e.g., 1000s of change requests from the IETF per year versus many fewer IP address delegations), etc. So their proposals will reflect these differences.

In step 2, you asked: What are the basis to make such accountability assessment without receiving output from CWG abnd CCWG?

The proposal from CWG IANA will be part of the basis for the accountability assessment (along with the proposals from the IETF and RIR communities). On the call there was support for relying on the CWG IANA as the voice of the names community, including relying on their choice to leverage the CCWG Accountability work or not.

In step 2, you asked: Do we mean interoperability since workability has no sense here?

In RFP Section IV we ask the communities to provide the following: "Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to established arrangements."

That is the sense in which we are using the term workability.

In step 3, you said: The minimum time should not be less that 30 days

This step is scoped for more than 90 days, so I think this is covered.

In step 4, you said: I agree with Alissa to repolce “ broad public support” with the language that she suggested which is more clear and stragight forward

I was not suggesting any changes to language in this section. I was just explaining in email what I think “broad public support” means.

Best, Alissa

On Dec 11, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

...

Begin forwarded message:

...

From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call Date: December 11, 2014 at 9:08:00 AM PST To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>

Please find attached my comments Kavouss Pls send it to others as I failed to do that Kavouss

2014-12-11 17:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <

daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:

...

...

Language in section 5 now addresses all concerns I have raised.

The rest of the document now looks reasonable as well. I agree with

the new intro, even in the light of my 'ceterum censeo'. ;-)

...

Thank you Alissa.

Daniel

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

<proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc,commented by kavouss.docx>

_______________________________________________ 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 would also add that Kavouss, like anyone, can participate actively in the Enhancing ICANN Accountability CCWG as an individual participant. I will be doing the same thing. I am not the official "appointed member" from the Registries Stakeholder Group (GNSO) but I will still be very active on behalf of Verisign, my employer. Similarly, Kavouss can participate actively on behalf of the Government of Iran or in his individual capacity. There is no restriction to anyone's active participation. Hope that helps! Sent from my iPhone On Dec 12, 2014, at 2:45 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote: Hi Kavouss, As I mentioned to you off-list, I think it’s fine if you want to participate in the CCWG-Accountability as both a GAC representative and ICG liaison, as long as (i) you confirm that the GAC wants you to serve as its representative, which is a decision that needs to be made among you and the other GAC members, without involvement from the ICG, and (ii) you make it clear to all CCWG participants that all of your contributions are on behalf of the GAC unless you explicitly state that you are providing information from the ICG. The ICG has no role in decisions of the GAC about the GAC’s representation in the CCWG. As the ICG discussed in Los Angeles, (see pages 50-60 of our meeting transcript: http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-icg/transcript-icg-17oct14-en.pdf ) the ICG wanted to make sure that we had people who could send information back and forth between our group and the CCWG. As summarized in the transcript, "Anything you think is important, let us know. Anything that we think is important, we'll let you know." The structure of the CCWG had not been formulated at the time when you agreed to liaise, but I think we had good agreement within the ICG nonetheless that the liaison role there on our behalf would be to share information back and forth, and not to specifically represent the ICG or vote on our behalf. If you would prefer, we can see if we can find a different ICG liaison or rely solely on Keith Drazek for now if you think serving as the liaison will interfere with your ability to participate in the CCWG. Best, Alissa On Dec 12, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, I wish to inform you that on the unfounded bureaucratic ground ,people wishes to avoid or prevent receiving any comments from me on the most crucial and most fundamental issue of ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG . However, I continue to comments and do in no way accept that because I am not the member of that group ( not included in the Thomas Schneider letter to the chair of that group my sincere volunteer to fully and actively participate as GAC member from Asia Pacific which is the most largest ICANN geographical region with more <http:/> than 75 countries or geographical dependent territories , my volunteer was rejected by the chair and the crew ). This is not fair nor acceptable I have asked to be the member of that Group from July 2014 in multiple communications to the former GAC Chsair and the Secretary. We need to encourage those who wish to contribute and not put an obstacle in using purely bureaucratic element that participants or Lisison can not actively contribute Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

I agree that close coordination is needed at least between the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability. In addition with respect to the timeline coordination is needed with the ICG. The respective charters of CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability make reference that << Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of the CWG-Stewardship

...

What makes me a bit nervous is the timeline for workstream 1 (WS1) of CCWG-Accountability focusing on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition. At the time being submission of WS1 is scheduled for June 2014. However the Stewardship transition proposals (from CWG-Stewardship) are expected by Jan 2014.

I’m not fully clear what the potential impact on the overall timeline may be. But this should be discussed – and coordinated – between the various groups’ leaderships. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 12:49 AM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: accountability-ccg-members@icann.org ; gac-iana-cgroup@icann.org ; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] CCWG Accountability Alissa, Thank you very much for your message. I will participate in CCWG ,for the time being and until the GAC chair make different rarrangements, as A PARTICIPANT. When I intervene, I make it clear that I am speaking on that capacity, should I need to intervene as ICG,as I made once, indicating that the deadline for Workstream 1 should meet and match with time lines that ICG established. What I can inform you now as ICG Liaison is that the course of action being taken does not correspond to the expectation of the overall accountabilty and there is insufficient coordination between CWG and CCWG workstream 1. Infact what ICG awaiting on accountability for its current activities ON NAMES should be fed from CWG and not CCWG. tHE Scope of activities of CCWG on accountabilty is currently norrowed down to collection of information from the past expereince and not addressing the fundamental issue of accountability ,if and only if, NTIA transfers the stewardship of IANA functions to Global Multistakeholder which would certainly bedifferent from the existing structure and mechanism of ICANN . We should all remember that currently ICANN is accountable to NTIA.To which entity ICANN would be accountable after transition, it is not yet clear. Certainly ,ICANN would not be accountable to ICANN .tHERE MUST BE A WORKABLE MECHANISM to which ICANN would be accountable .This is a fact and reality. By the way, I was not voluteer to be Liason at CCWG, i WAS VOLUNTEERED FOR cwg, YOU ASKED ME TO WITHDRAW FROM CWG and I respected your request tks Kavouss 2014-12-12 21:26 GMT+01:00 Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>: I would also add that Kavouss, like anyone, can participate actively in the Enhancing ICANN Accountability CCWG as an individual participant. I will be doing the same thing. I am not the official "appointed member" from the Registries Stakeholder Group (GNSO) but I will still be very active on behalf of Verisign, my employer. Similarly, Kavouss can participate actively on behalf of the Government of Iran or in his individual capacity. There is no restriction to anyone's active participation. Hope that helps! Sent from my iPhone On Dec 12, 2014, at 2:45 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote: Hi Kavouss, As I mentioned to you off-list, I think it’s fine if you want to participate in the CCWG-Accountability as both a GAC representative and ICG liaison, as long as (i) you confirm that the GAC wants you to serve as its representative, which is a decision that needs to be made among you and the other GAC members, without involvement from the ICG, and (ii) you make it clear to all CCWG participants that all of your contributions are on behalf of the GAC unless you explicitly state that you are providing information from the ICG. The ICG has no role in decisions of the GAC about the GAC’s representation in the CCWG. As the ICG discussed in Los Angeles, (see pages 50-60 of our meeting transcript: http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-icg/transcript-icg-17oct14-en.pdf ) the ICG wanted to make sure that we had people who could send information back and forth between our group and the CCWG. As summarized in the transcript, "Anything you think is important, let us know. Anything that we think is important, we'll let you know." The structure of the CCWG had not been formulated at the time when you agreed to liaise, but I think we had good agreement within the ICG nonetheless that the liaison role there on our behalf would be to share information back and forth, and not to specifically represent the ICG or vote on our behalf. If you would prefer, we can see if we can find a different ICG liaison or rely solely on Keith Drazek for now if you think serving as the liaison will interfere with your ability to participate in the CCWG. Best, Alissa On Dec 12, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, I wish to inform you that on the unfounded bureaucratic ground ,people wishes to avoid or prevent receiving any comments from me on the most crucial and most fundamental issue of ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY CCWG . However, I continue to comments and do in no way accept that because I am not the member of that group ( not included in the Thomas Schneider letter to the chair of that group my sincere volunteer to fully and actively participate as GAC member from Asia Pacific which is the most largest ICANN geographical region with more than 75 countries or geographical dependent territories , my volunteer was rejected by the chair and the crew ). This is not fair nor acceptable I have asked to be the member of that Group from July 2014 in multiple communications to the former GAC Chsair and the Secretary. We need to encourage those who wish to contribute and not put an obstacle in using purely bureaucratic element that participants or Lisison can not actively contribute Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ 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

Alissa, I am sop sorry not replied to your earlier message. Yes I do. As far as I am concerned, I have no further comments Pls proceed ,as appropriate Kavouss 2014-12-16 18:20 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:

Hi Kavouss,

Are you in agreement with the changes made in response to your comments? I’d like to start the consensus call for publication on this document if so.

Thanks, Alissa

On Dec 12, 2014, at 2:39 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Alissa, Thank you for your reply I am travelling now as soon as I got back to night will look art your revised text. Tks have a nice day Kavouss

2014-12-12 11:21 GMT+01:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>:

...

Thanks Alissa,

I'm fine with your amendments. Re the definition of “broad public support” I agree to the plain English reading (“most people and communities that we hear from are in favor”).

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

*From:* Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 12:35 AM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* ICG <internal-cg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call

Hi Kavouss,

I’ve attached a version that addresses some of your comments. For the rest, my responses are below.

In step 2, you asked: What do we mean by “the differences between the communities and the related IANA functions”?

From my perspective the communities are different — they operate differently, they document things differently, the IANA functions that they make use of cover different registries, they rely on IANA in different ways (e.g., 1000s of change requests from the IETF per year versus many fewer IP address delegations), etc. So their proposals will reflect these differences.

In step 2, you asked: What are the basis to make such accountability assessment without receiving output from CWG abnd CCWG?

The proposal from CWG IANA will be part of the basis for the accountability assessment (along with the proposals from the IETF and RIR communities). On the call there was support for relying on the CWG IANA as the voice of the names community, including relying on their choice to leverage the CCWG Accountability work or not.

In step 2, you asked: Do we mean interoperability since workability has no sense here?

In RFP Section IV we ask the communities to provide the following: "Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to established arrangements."

That is the sense in which we are using the term workability.

In step 3, you said: The minimum time should not be less that 30 days

This step is scoped for more than 90 days, so I think this is covered.

In step 4, you said: I agree with Alissa to repolce “ broad public support” with the language that she suggested which is more clear and stragight forward

I was not suggesting any changes to language in this section. I was just explaining in email what I think “broad public support” means.

Best, Alissa

------------------------------

On Dec 11, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Subject: **Fwd: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call* *Date: *December 11, 2014 at 9:08:00 AM PST *To: *Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>

Please find attached my comments Kavouss Pls send it to others as I failed to do that Kavouss

2014-12-11 17:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> :

...

Language in section 5 now addresses all concerns I have raised.

The rest of the document now looks reasonable as well. I agree with the new intro, even in the light of my 'ceterum censeo'. ;-)

Thank you Alissa.

Daniel

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

<proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc,commented by kavouss.docx>

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

------------------------------ Hi Kavouss,

I’ve attached a version that addresses some of your comments. For the rest, my responses are below.

In step 2, you asked: What do we mean by “the differences between the communities and the related IANA functions”?

From my perspective the communities are different — they operate differently, they document things differently, the IANA functions that they make use of cover different registries, they rely on IANA in different ways (e.g., 1000s of change requests from the IETF per year versus many fewer IP address delegations), etc. So their proposals will reflect these differences.

In step 2, you asked: What are the basis to make such accountability assessment without receiving output from CWG abnd CCWG?

The proposal from CWG IANA will be part of the basis for the accountability assessment (along with the proposals from the IETF and RIR communities). On the call there was support for relying on the CWG IANA as the voice of the names community, including relying on their choice to leverage the CCWG Accountability work or not.

In step 2, you asked: Do we mean interoperability since workability has no sense here?

In RFP Section IV we ask the communities to provide the following: "Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of any new technical or operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to established arrangements."

That is the sense in which we are using the term workability.

In step 3, you said: The minimum time should not be less that 30 days

This step is scoped for more than 90 days, so I think this is covered.

In step 4, you said: I agree with Alissa to repolce “ broad public support” with the language that she suggested which is more clear and stragight forward

I was not suggesting any changes to language in this section. I was just explaining in email what I think “broad public support” means.

Best, Alissa

On Dec 11, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

...

Begin forwarded message:

...

From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: [Internal-cg] Proposal finalization process, post-call Date: December 11, 2014 at 9:08:00 AM PST To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>

Please find attached my comments Kavouss Pls send it to others as I failed to do that Kavouss

2014-12-11 17:11 GMT+01:00 Daniel Karrenberg <

daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>:

...

...

Language in section 5 now addresses all concerns I have raised.

The rest of the document now looks reasonable as well. I agree with

the new intro, even in the light of my 'ceterum censeo'. ;-)

...

Thank you Alissa.

Daniel

_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

<proposal-finalization-process-v4-wuk-alc,commented by kavouss.docx>

_______________________________________________ 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