My only concern is with this text:
While there is some overlap among all ofthese categories, each poses distinct organizational, operational and technical issues, and each tends to have distinct communities of interest and expertise. For those reasons it is best to have work on the three categories of IANA parameters proceed autonomously in parallel and be based in the respective communities.
I do not see the constituencies so very distinct. Where is gac? Where is SSAC? Where is ICC? I do not mind having text referring to the respective PDPs but should not be used to exclude comments from those not directly involved in the PDPs. This also goes back to what I think ICANN need to improve. Maybe you have talked about this (one case of "distinct" is removed, good) but I propose small change like: While there is some overlap among all ofthese categories, each poses different organizational, operational and technical issues, and each tends to have different communities of interest and expertise. For those reasons it is best to have work on the three categories of IANA parameters proceed autonomously in parallel and be mainly based in the respective communities. Patrik
Patrik, Can you take a look at v6? We’re trying to be more balanced there with the role of the “operational communities” vs. others. Not in the exact point in the text that you pointed to, but in the rest of the document. The GAC and the SSAC and so are important parties in the overall system. Their input will be heard by (a) the three communities and (b) the coordination group. No question about that. Jari
Yes, shortly...
On 18 jul 2014, at 14:23, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
Patrik,
Can you take a look at v6? We’re trying to be more balanced there with the role of the “operational communities” vs. others. Not in the exact point in the text that you pointed to, but in the rest of the document.
The GAC and the SSAC and so are important parties in the overall system. Their input will be heard by (a) the three communities and (b) the coordination group. No question about that.
Jari
My only concern is with this text:
While there is some overlap among all ofthese categories, each poses distinct organizational, operational and technical issues, and each tends to have distinct communities of interest and expertise. For those reasons it is best to have work on the three categories of IANA parameters proceed autonomously in parallel and be based in the respective communities.
I do not see the constituencies so very distinct. Where is gac? Where is SSAC? Where is ICC? I do not mind having text referring to the respective PDPs but should not be used to exclude comments from those not directly involved in the PDPs. This also goes back to what I think ICANN need to improve. Maybe you have talked about this (one case of "distinct" is removed, good) but I propose small change like: While there is some overlap among all ofthese categories, each poses different organizational, operational and technical issues, and each tends to have different communities of interest and expertise. For those reasons it is best to have work on the three categories of IANA parameters proceed autonomously in parallel and be mainly based in the respective communities. Patrik
participants (3)
-
Jari Arkko -
Patrik Fältström -
Patrik Fältström