IETF response to ICG
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
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-finaliz...> 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
I am taking a step back on this one. I think it would be best if this step were taken by someone other than me or Jari. Russ On Jan 6, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Alissa Cooper 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-finaliz...> 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
Thank you Russ. This is a largely administrative task and easy to do, however I suspect I may be ruled out also as the ISOC Board has an oversight point for the IAB and IETF also. The task needs to be spread across a few people and compiled into a table then rechecked a by several people then put to the whole, imho. Thoughts? Narelle From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2015 10:06 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG I am taking a step back on this one. I think it would be best if this step were taken by someone other than me or Jari. Russ On Jan 6, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Alissa Cooper 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-finaliz...> 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<mailto: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<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
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-finaliz...> 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
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
I agree with Milton. Keith Drazek -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 9:58 AM To: Paul Wilson; Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG 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
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
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
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
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.
This seems very reasonable. Thanks. Jari
I’ve reviewed this thread and the other related threads and would like to suggest the following: We should strive to get a few people specifically committed to reviewing each proposal, and those people should have varying levels of involvement in each process and familiarity with each community, including “insiders” and “outsiders.” For protocol parameters, I would suggest that the full reviewers be: Jean-Jacques Subrenat Keith Drazek Daniel Karrenberg Jari Arkko This group has a couple of “outsiders,” Jari who was deeply involved in the proposal development, and Daniel who is familiar with the IETF but was not involved in the proposal development. Based on who else has volunteered already, I think we can find this kind of balance for all of the proposals we receive. (Jean-Jacques and Keith have already volunteered for protocol parameters — would be great if the other two listed above are available for this but if not please shout). Anyone else who wants to review the proposal should feel free to do so, of course. Joe and I have put together the attached assessment sheet for the reviewers to fill out and send back to the ICG when their reviews are complete. <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pro...> Since we have a call scheduled for January 28, I would suggest a deadline of January 26 for the protocol parameters reviewers to send their reviews to the ICG, and for anyone else to send reviews or initial comments. Then we could potentially have some initial discussion and Q&A on our January 28 call, to be continued Feb 6-7. This timing gives the reviewers 2 weeks to complete their reviews. Does this seem workable? Alissa On Jan 12, 2015, at 9:51 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
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.
This seems very reasonable. Thanks.
Jari
We should strive to get a few people specifically committed to reviewing each proposal, and those people should have varying levels of involvement in each process and familiarity with each community, including “insiders” and “outsiders.” For protocol parameters, I would suggest that the full reviewers be:
Jean-Jacques Subrenat Keith Drazek Daniel Karrenberg Jari Arkko
This group has a couple of “outsiders,” Jari who was deeply involved in the proposal development, and Daniel who is familiar with the IETF but was not involved in the proposal development. Based on who else has volunteered already, I think we can find this kind of balance for all of the proposals we receive.
(Jean-Jacques and Keith have already volunteered for protocol parameters — would be great if the other two listed above are available for this but if not please shout).
Works for me. Jari
I would like to review the protocols proposal and the numbers proposal. I think the real challenge of this process is going to be assessing the relationship between the proposals, and since it is a while before we will get the names proposal, there is not a lot that can be done now other than checking for completeness. Investing too much time or pretending that the reviews are finished before we have all of them will just lead to duplicative work later on. --MM From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 5:51 PM To: Jari Arkko Cc: Milton L Mueller; Paul Wilson; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG I've reviewed this thread and the other related threads and would like to suggest the following: We should strive to get a few people specifically committed to reviewing each proposal, and those people should have varying levels of involvement in each process and familiarity with each community, including "insiders" and "outsiders." For protocol parameters, I would suggest that the full reviewers be: Jean-Jacques Subrenat Keith Drazek Daniel Karrenberg Jari Arkko This group has a couple of "outsiders," Jari who was deeply involved in the proposal development, and Daniel who is familiar with the IETF but was not involved in the proposal development. Based on who else has volunteered already, I think we can find this kind of balance for all of the proposals we receive. (Jean-Jacques and Keith have already volunteered for protocol parameters - would be great if the other two listed above are available for this but if not please shout). Anyone else who wants to review the proposal should feel free to do so, of course. Joe and I have put together the attached assessment sheet for the reviewers to fill out and send back to the ICG when their reviews are complete. <https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Proposal%20finalization%20pro...> Since we have a call scheduled for January 28, I would suggest a deadline of January 26 for the protocol parameters reviewers to send their reviews to the ICG, and for anyone else to send reviews or initial comments. Then we could potentially have some initial discussion and Q&A on our January 28 call, to be continued Feb 6-7. This timing gives the reviewers 2 weeks to complete their reviews. Does this seem workable? Alissa
I have read this through, and my impression is that it is more work than I had thought as it requires a lot of additional reading in order to assess the document. It makes many references to other documents, which is fair enough, but then I need to (as we say) ferret them out in order to consider their content. Whether or not I need to consider this content deeply is a moot question. The community it serves is clearly satisfied with the processes etc the documents describe, and therefore it is arguable that these processes and systems must be satisfactory. But what if they aren't? Just thinking out loud, here and clearly I am still processing this response with respect to its ability to provide us with the input we need to fulfil the task we have. What do others think? Narelle
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2015 4:26 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG
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
Narelle, That there is some amount of reading to do is probably a feature in all proposals, at least if they point to existing mechanisms described elsewhere or describe new mechanisms with a reasonable level of detail. No one said the ICG job was going to be easy :-) And while I’d probably classify our task more in the category of ensuring the proposals fulfil the criteria and can fit to the rest of the system than determining if they are satisfactory to us, in any case there will be some reading and proposal-understanding ahead all of us. Unless the rest of you already understand everything, I certainly do not... If there’s anything that the IETF team can do to help provide information or explain wrt our arrangements, let us know. Jari
Colleagues I suggest that we have reviewers for each proposal that include technical savvy and less technical oriented reviewers - to make sure that technical nuances may be appropriately considered? The next two weeks are tight but I can volunteer where needed. May I suggest that we need to spread out across all the submissions... Names seems to have the greatest gravitational attraction for obvious reasons... Joe On 1/6/2015 6:45 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Narelle,
That there is some amount of reading to do is probably a feature in all proposals, at least if they point to existing mechanisms described elsewhere or describe new mechanisms with a reasonable level of detail.
No one said the ICG job was going to be easy :-) And while I’d probably classify our task more in the category of ensuring the proposals fulfil the criteria and can fit to the rest of the system than determining if they are satisfactory to us, in any case there will be some reading and proposal-understanding ahead all of us. Unless the rest of you already understand everything, I certainly do not...
If there’s anything that the IETF team can do to help provide information or explain wrt our arrangements, let us know.
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
[Interesting. This message didn't land in my mailbox, so thank you to Joe for reposting in full! Spam filters now adjusted... and that explains a few missing threads.] Hi Jari The issue isn't with the amount of reading to do, but rather that it is an extensive list all referenced to elsewhere. When I have run tenders in the past it all usually comes packaged in with the response, and the responses to ours thus far seem just a little too brief, and the other material quite lengthy and elsewhere. I have plenty of experience ferreting out RFCs but it does get tedious. Narelle On 1/6/2015 6:45 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: Narelle, That there is some amount of reading to do is probably a feature in all proposals, at least if they point to existing mechanisms described elsewhere or describe new mechanisms with a reasonable level of detail. No one said the ICG job was going to be easy :-) And while I'd probably classify our task more in the category of ensuring the proposals fulfil the criteria and can fit to the rest of the system than determining if they are satisfactory to us, in any case there will be some reading and proposal-understanding ahead all of us. Unless the rest of you already understand everything, I certainly do not... If there's anything that the IETF team can do to help provide information or explain wrt our arrangements, let us know. Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (11)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Drazek, Keith -
Jari Arkko -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lynn St.Amour -
Manal Ismail -
Milton L Mueller -
Narelle Clark -
Paul Wilson -
Russ Housley