kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Jun 26 18:46:46 UTC 2015
I was at the meeting and carefully listened to him and later on talked to him
He eluded to the consideration of possible alternative way to pursue CCWG proposal on the table during the second round.
In NO way he referred or meant to advocate the need for alternative ICG
Sent from my iPhone
> On 26 Jun 2015, at 07:37, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote:
> Since Larry Strickling was relatively general in asking for explanations re potential alternatives to the proposal clarification might be of advantage whether his concerns are more related to the CCWG proposal and its development.
> For the explanation of the ICG proposal I basically agree with James.
> Sent from my personal phone
>> Am 26.06.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> After more reflection I still do not support this.
>> I understand the motivation of NTIA and the arguments in favour. They
>> do not convince me that we should do extra work or add extra words:
>> I remain convinced that all we need is a description of transition and
>> the post-transition state plus a description of the process to develop
>> this description. We should describe our own process and provide
>> pointers to the public record of how the customer communities
>> developed their responses to us. Their record already includes the
>> principles they developed and discussions about alternatives. We can
>> ask for *specific* clarification by the communities if we feel
>> something is missing from their response to us or from the existing
>> public record.
>> Of course we should add our evaluation whether the process and the
>> result meet the criteria set out at the beginning.
>> There is no need for us to re-tell the story of how the proposals were
>> developed. Re-telling the story is unnecessary work which also has a
>> great risk of changing the story, even unintentionally. We should not
>> expose ourselves to the risk of causing confusion or maybe even
>> failure by re-interpreting the public record of the communities.
>> Re-telling also creates more words. As you know I advocate the minimum
>> number of words possible.
>> We should not invent new requirements or criteria on the fly unless we
>> have very strong consensus in the ICG that they are absolutely
>> necessary for our deliverable and they were not foreseeable at the
>> outset. Asking the communities at this point for the a description of
>> the alternatives they considered is such a new requirement and I do
>> not consider it necessary.
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
More information about the Internal-cg