[Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Jun 7 21:02:14 UTC 2015
I am sorry you misunderstood my message.
Pls read it again.
I said , if and only if, we need to have any introductory part, let us
borrow the concept and message from the introductory part of CWG and CCWG.
However, I imentioned that we do not need to write page of introduction.
One or two simple paragraphs taken from our chater is more than sufficient.
2015-06-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wuknoben at gmail.com>:
> Thanks Kavouss,
> please see my comments inserted (in blue)
> Best regards
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:57 PM
> *To:* WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal
> We need to properly understand the objectives of your proposal
> If I understand the matter as soon as the final DARFT is ready we will
> call for public comments (first public comments). We could consider the
> introductory part of the First CWG and/or Second CWG call for public
> comments or that of the First CCWG and/or Second CCWG call for public
> comments ( which will be soon available ).However ,such introductory parts
> for the above Cross Community Groups were complemented by ICANN in its
> official announcement for public comment
> My question then is why we need to get involved in this formality apart
> from few short paragraphs which describes the actions being taken which
> are already summarized in our Charter.
> I didn’t refer to the CWG nor the CCWG call for public comments. I think
> we should develop our own introductory part for the upcoming ICG call for
> public comments. But this introductory part should be different from the
> preface of the final proposal to be sent to the NTIA. The details of the
> different items should be discussed. I’m of the opinion that the
> explanation of IANA and the related business – which was suggested by
> Milton to become a point within the preface – should just be used in the
> introductory part for the upcoming ICG public comment.
> Before proceeding further ,we need to finalize the purpose and usefulness
> of such work taking into account that we need to be careful that we we may
> prepare would not have any inconsistency with that which would normally be
> prepared by ICANN.
> Fully agreed.
> 2015-06-06 14:16 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>:
>> 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
>> > 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
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg