Re: [Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal
Colleagues: No one is disagreeing with the need to do the job and do it well, but the reality is that two communities have done their work and we have an opportunity to progress that work in Singapore, we will not be repesctful of their work if we don't use this opportinity. Maybe there won't be a complete review but we cannot ignore the timely work of those communities. Best Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Received: Friday, 16 Jan 2015, 11:50AM To: Milton L Mueller [mueller@syr.edu] CC: ICG [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal 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
Dear Joe I fully respect and appreciate those who have timely completed their works. Other who have not done so were also very efficient and worked hard but the circumstances did not allow them to have a through analysis of the case. I also agree with you that we need to use all opportunities and time availabilities without rush .26 JAN is an objective deadline we may achieve that or may need to extend that, if necessary Regards KAVOUSS 2015-01-16 17:58 GMT+01:00 Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>:
Colleagues:
No one is disagreeing with the need to do the job and do it well, but the reality is that two communities have done their work and we have an opportunity to progress that work in Singapore, we will not be repesctful of their work if we don't use this opportinity. Maybe there won't be a complete review but we cannot ignore the timely work of those communities.
Best
Joe
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Received: Friday, 16 Jan 2015, 11:50AM To: Milton L Mueller [mueller@syr.edu] CC: ICG [internal-cg@icann.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Jan 26 review deadline for Protocols proposal
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
participants (2)
-
Joseph Alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh