Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG
Alissa to Martin's previous email, perhaps the person highly involved takes the first shot at filling out the review form and the others can validate that it's accurate and each can opine on whether it's correct, complete sufficient, whatever the right administrative word, to meet the RFP. Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [alissa@cooperw.in] Received: Monday, 12 Jan 2015, 5:51PM To: Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net] CC: ICG [internal-cg@icann.org] 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 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
Many thanks Alissa and Joe for the assessment sheet .. I believe we should strive to have everyone contribute to the assessment of every proposal (to the extent feasible) .. I was going to suggest that we discuss as a group then fill one assessment sheet with our consensus view, but I have to admit that Joe's below proposal seems to be more productive .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 1:27 AM To: jari.arkko@piuha.net; alissa@cooperw.in Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG Alissa to Martin's previous email, perhaps the person highly involved takes the first shot at filling out the review form and the others can validate that it's accurate and each can opine on whether it's correct, complete sufficient, whatever the right administrative word, to meet the RFP. Joe Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [alissa@cooperw.in] Received: Monday, 12 Jan 2015, 5:51PM To: Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net] CC: ICG [internal-cg@icann.org] 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 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
This makes sense to me. Jari, this means you would take the lead on the protocol parameters proposal assessment and fill out the sheet. The other reviewers who volunteered can use that as input in their own reviews and we can leave it up to them as to whether they fill out the sheet or not. And the same for all the rest of us. Alissa On Jan 12, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Alissa to Martin's previous email, perhaps the person highly involved takes the first shot at filling out the review form and the others can validate that it's accurate and each can opine on whether it's correct, complete sufficient, whatever the right administrative word, to meet the RFP.
Joe
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [alissa@cooperw.in] Received: Monday, 12 Jan 2015, 5:51PM To: Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net] CC: ICG [internal-cg@icann.org] 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
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
Dear All, While we appreciate that Jari take up the task to fill up the form,but would not be better that someone else from ICG 9 outside the Parameter operating community) does that work? Kavouss 2015-01-13 22:15 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>:
This makes sense to me.
Jari, this means you would take the lead on the protocol parameters proposal assessment and fill out the sheet. The other reviewers who volunteered can use that as input in their own reviews and we can leave it up to them as to whether they fill out the sheet or not. And the same for all the rest of us.
Alissa
On Jan 12, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Alissa to Martin's previous email, perhaps the person highly involved takes the first shot at filling out the review form and the others can validate that it's accurate and each can opine on whether it's correct, complete sufficient, whatever the right administrative word, to meet the RFP.
Joe
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [alissa@cooperw.in] Received: Monday, 12 Jan 2015, 5:51PM To: Jari Arkko [jari.arkko@piuha.net] CC: ICG [internal-cg@icann.org] 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
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, this is to convey my agreement with the draft Assessment on IETF's response to the RFP, regarding Protocol Parmaeters. Jari, please add my name to the list of those who did the Assessment. Having read IETF's response, I would like to offer my congratulations to Lear & Housley for the thoroughness, impeccable documentation and clarity of their response of behalf of IAB and IETF. Well done Russ! Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Mercredi 14 Janvier 2015 14:35:56 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG Dear All, While we appreciate that Jari take up the task to fill up the form,but would not be better that someone else from ICG 9 outside the Parameter operating community) does that work? Kavouss 2015-01-13 22:15 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper < alissa@cooperw.in > : This makes sense to me. Jari, this means you would take the lead on the protocol parameters proposal assessment and fill out the sheet. The other reviewers who volunteered can use that as input in their own reviews and we can leave it up to them as to whether they fill out the sheet or not. And the same for all the rest of us. Alissa On Jan 12, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Joseph Alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com > wrote:
Alissa to Martin's previous email, perhaps the person highly involved takes the first shot at filling out the review form and the others can validate that it's accurate and each can opine on whether it's correct, complete sufficient, whatever the right administrative word, to meet the RFP.
Joe
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown ( www.nitrodesk.com )
-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [ alissa@cooperw.in ] Received: Monday, 12 Jan 2015, 5:51PM To: Jari Arkko [ jari.arkko@piuha.net ] CC: ICG [ internal-cg@icann.org ] 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
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
_______________________________________________ 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 Jari, May you kindly send me a copy of your assessment as referred to by Jean-Jaques Regards KA 2015-02-02 14:53 GMT+01:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net>:
Dear All,
this is to convey my agreement with the draft Assessment on IETF's response to the RFP, regarding Protocol Parmaeters. Jari, please add my name to the list of those who did the Assessment.
Having read IETF's response, I would like to offer my congratulations to Lear & Housley for the thoroughness, impeccable documentation and clarity of their response of behalf of IAB and IETF. Well done Russ!
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Mercredi 14 Janvier 2015 14:35:56 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG
Dear All, While we appreciate that Jari take up the task to fill up the form,but would not be better that someone else from ICG 9 outside the Parameter operating community) does that work? Kavouss
2015-01-13 22:15 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper < alissa@cooperw.in > :
This makes sense to me.
Jari, this means you would take the lead on the protocol parameters proposal assessment and fill out the sheet. The other reviewers who volunteered can use that as input in their own reviews and we can leave it up to them as to whether they fill out the sheet or not. And the same for all the rest of us.
Alissa
On Jan 12, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Joseph Alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com
wrote:
Alissa to Martin's previous email, perhaps the person highly involved takes the first shot at filling out the review form and the others can validate that it's accurate and each can opine on whether it's correct, complete sufficient, whatever the right administrative word, to meet the RFP.
Joe
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown ( www.nitrodesk.com )
-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [ alissa@cooperw.in ] Received: Monday, 12 Jan 2015, 5:51PM To: Jari Arkko [ jari.arkko@piuha.net ] CC: ICG [ internal-cg@icann.org ] 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
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Kavouss, others, The assessments and other documents are in Dropbox so you can find them yourself. You who provide assessments, don't forget saving them there. Patrik
On 2 feb 2015, at 16:20, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Jari, May you kindly send me a copy of your assessment as referred to by Jean-Jaques Regards KA
2015-02-02 14:53 GMT+01:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net <mailto:jjs@dyalog.net>>: Dear All,
this is to convey my agreement with the draft Assessment on IETF's response to the RFP, regarding Protocol Parmaeters. Jari, please add my name to the list of those who did the Assessment.
Having read IETF's response, I would like to offer my congratulations to Lear & Housley for the thoroughness, impeccable documentation and clarity of their response of behalf of IAB and IETF. Well done Russ!
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org>> Envoyé: Mercredi 14 Janvier 2015 14:35:56 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG
Dear All, While we appreciate that Jari take up the task to fill up the form,but would not be better that someone else from ICG 9 outside the Parameter operating community) does that work? Kavouss
2015-01-13 22:15 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper < alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in> > :
This makes sense to me.
Jari, this means you would take the lead on the protocol parameters proposal assessment and fill out the sheet. The other reviewers who volunteered can use that as input in their own reviews and we can leave it up to them as to whether they fill out the sheet or not. And the same for all the rest of us.
Alissa
On Jan 12, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Joseph Alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> > wrote:
Alissa to Martin's previous email, perhaps the person highly involved takes the first shot at filling out the review form and the others can validate that it's accurate and each can opine on whether it's correct, complete sufficient, whatever the right administrative word, to meet the RFP.
Joe
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown ( www.nitrodesk.com <http://www.nitrodesk.com/> )
-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [ alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in> ] Received: Monday, 12 Jan 2015, 5:51PM To: Jari Arkko [ jari.arkko@piuha.net <mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net> ] CC: ICG [ internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> ] 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... <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 <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hello, it seems that my (limited) corrections to the Assessment of the Protocol Parameters were not properly recorded in Dropbox. As a consequence, I'm sending it to you as an attachment. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Patrik Fältström" <paf@frobbit.se> À: "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Lundi 2 Février 2015 17:00:32 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG Kavouss, others, The assessments and other documents are in Dropbox so you can find them yourself. You who provide assessments, don't forget saving them there. Patrik On 2 feb 2015, at 16:20, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com > wrote: Dear Jari, May you kindly send me a copy of your assessment as referred to by Jean-Jaques Regards KA 2015-02-02 14:53 GMT+01:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques < jjs@dyalog.net > : Dear All, this is to convey my agreement with the draft Assessment on IETF's response to the RFP, regarding Protocol Parmaeters. Jari, please add my name to the list of those who did the Assessment. Having read IETF's response, I would like to offer my congratulations to Lear & Housley for the thoroughness, impeccable documentation and clarity of their response of behalf of IAB and IETF. Well done Russ! Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Kavouss Arasteh" < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com > À: "Alissa Cooper" < alissa@cooperw.in > Cc: "ICG" < internal-cg@icann.org > Envoyé: Mercredi 14 Janvier 2015 14:35:56 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG Dear All, While we appreciate that Jari take up the task to fill up the form,but would not be better that someone else from ICG 9 outside the Parameter operating community) does that work? Kavouss 2015-01-13 22:15 GMT+01:00 Alissa Cooper < alissa@cooperw.in > : This makes sense to me. Jari, this means you would take the lead on the protocol parameters proposal assessment and fill out the sheet. The other reviewers who volunteered can use that as input in their own reviews and we can leave it up to them as to whether they fill out the sheet or not. And the same for all the rest of us. Alissa On Jan 12, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Joseph Alhadeff < joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com > wrote:
Alissa to Martin's previous email, perhaps the person highly involved takes the first shot at filling out the review form and the others can validate that it's accurate and each can opine on whether it's correct, complete sufficient, whatever the right administrative word, to meet the RFP.
Joe
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown ( www.nitrodesk.com )
-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [ alissa@cooperw.in ] Received: Monday, 12 Jan 2015, 5:51PM To: Jari Arkko [ jari.arkko@piuha.net ] CC: ICG [ internal-cg@icann.org ] 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
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Jari, this means you would take the lead on the protocol parameters proposal assessment and fill out the sheet. The other reviewers who volunteered can use that as input in their own reviews and we can leave it up to them as to whether they fill out the sheet or not. And the same for all the rest of us.
I have worked on filling the assessment sheet. This is probably a good test case for the template and the process as well. Lets learn from this. This is an initial draft of the assessment, from my perspective (and I showed it to a couple other IETFers as well for feedback). But this draft represents ultimately my view, and it would of course be silly if only my view was used in the ICG process. Hence it is important that the rest of the assessment team for the protocol parameters proposal carefully inspects the submission, and provides their analysis, and that we modify the assessment document accordingly. As Joe said earlier:
perhaps the person highly involved takes the first shot at filling out the review form and the others can validate that it's accurate and each can opine on whether it's correct, complete sufficient, whatever the right administrative word, to meet the RFP.
A couple of observations from using the template. At this point, we have not really asked for a lot of feedback from the community, hence template point A.1 will unlikely have a lot of material for any of the submissions, unless significant number of people have decided to complain to the ICG about something going on in that particular operational community. But we will of course later get more feedback. Also on point A.1, it says explicitly “process concern”, I took that to be issues specifically related to running the process, rather than substantial concerns (such as comments on a proposal). Was this as intended? For the rest, I chose to use largely words from the proposal itself, when it provided such words. Obviously, only in those cases where I believed the situation to really be as described. But I could have chosen to write some of the answers in my own words, as well. This seemed unnecessary in cases where a clear piece of text was already provided. Jari
Hi Jari, On Jan 18, 2015, at 12:35 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
A couple of observations from using the template.
At this point, we have not really asked for a lot of feedback from the community,
Section I of the RFP <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en....> explains how the community could provide feedback to us. Of course we encouraged people to participate directly in the community processes, which they seem to have done, so we did not receive many comments directly. But we did setup a mechanism for community feedback to us when we released the RFP.
hence template point A.1 will unlikely have a lot of material for any of the submissions, unless significant number of people have decided to complain to the ICG about something going on in that particular operational community. But we will of course later get more feedback.
Also on point A.1, it says explicitly “process concern”, I took that to be issues specifically related to running the process, rather than substantial concerns (such as comments on a proposal). Was this as intended?
Yes. Section A is about process and Section B is about substance. Thanks, Alissa
For the rest, I chose to use largely words from the proposal itself, when it provided such words. Obviously, only in those cases where I believed the situation to really be as described. But I could have chosen to write some of the answers in my own words, as well. This seemed unnecessary in cases where a clear piece of text was already provided.
<individual-proposal-assessment-parameters-v02.doc>
Jari
I have added the document to Dropbox, under “Evaluation”. There are some updates needed, in addition to all of you doing evaluation. First, we should add the missing NTIA requirement. Second, we should note Richard’s concern and observe that being something that has been raised (now and before) during the IETF process. Who has the token to make these? Jari
I will do it, since I am making a lot of other additions/changes ;-)
-----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 4:02 PM To: Milton L Mueller; Drazek, Keith; Daniel Karrenberg Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF response evaluation in the ICG
I have added the document to Dropbox, under "Evaluation".
There are some updates needed, in addition to all of you doing evaluation. First, we should add the missing NTIA requirement. Second, we should note Richard's concern and observe that being something that has been raised (now and before) during the IETF process. Who has the token to make these?
Jari
participants (8)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Jari Arkko -
Joseph Alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Manal Ismail -
Milton L Mueller -
Patrik Fältström -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques