[Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Sat Jun 6 12:16:19 UTC 2015

I think there are two "recipients" of the proposal we have to take into consideration at the time being: the "public comment community" and NTIA. I here suppose that NTIA knows what IANA is and does. Consequently there should be slightly different intros for the two purposes - or a separate intro for the public comment period on top of the preface.
In this separate intro I'd place Miltons suggestion to explain what IANA is and does (the latter seems to me more important).

The points for the preface itself as suggested by Alissa plus an explanation of the rationale and motivation behind the overall proposal (Milton) look good. I just wonder – but I’m not yet sure – whether something should be written with regards to the work of the CCWG-accountability and how their input is taken.

Best regards


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Milton L Mueller 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:56 AM 
To: Alissa Cooper ; internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal 

> -----Original Message-----
> What points are important to make in the preface? Off the top of my head, I
> would say we need at the very least:
> - High-level summary of the proposal

I think it's important to provide an overview that explains the rationale and motivation behind the overall proposal. Not sure how we can do this until we have the final proposal, however. 

One thing I have learned from the process is that many people still don't quite understand that IANA is a collection of registries, and they may not understand how related or unrelated the names, numbers and protocol registries are. This should be explained. Ths overview might also include references to RFC 7500 as well as some of the general principles adopted by the names and numbers communities in developing their proposals, as well as a discussion of how we see the relationship between the IANA functions for the 3 communities under the PTI model and a discussion of how each community is handling the issue of contracting or "separability."  

> - High-level summary of the process used to produce the proposal - both
> the community processes and our process

This is of secondary importance, in my opinion. Yes, a short summary of the process used is needed. What really matters here, however, is whether the final proposal has achieved the "broad community support" required by the NTIA criteria, which is part of the next item...

> - Our assessment of how/why the proposal meets the NTIA criteria

Very important. Take each criterion in turn. Here again it would, I think, be inappropriate to start working on this until we actually have the final proposal. Of course we can describe how the numbers and protocol proposals meet the criteria but we are not entirely sure yet whether they might be slightly modified in reponse to what the names proposal does.

> I'm willing to write a first draft of the preface but would like a few volunteers
> to form a small editing team before we bring it back to the full ICG. Who is
> willing to volunteer? (Jean-Jacques, can I assume you are?)

Willing to volunteer but advance warning that I will be unable to do much in the July 15 - 24 time frame. 

Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150606/0723f14c/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list