paf at frobbit.se
Sat May 23 19:33:21 UTC 2015
This is one the reasons I am nervous of a "simple" questions-and-answer roundtrip, where the value of the answer is impossible to interpret given the context is unknown. This is why I rather see one question and then we allow some discussion, cross-oc discussion and finally a discussion within ICG about *OUR* timeline (which you see Alissa has initiated). I guess we also in ICG will discuss what is meant by implementation in the letter from Strickling to us chairs.
So, to answer your question, maybe, but I see the need for some discussion on what in general is meant by "implementation". And ultimately we are not after "July 23 or 24" but rather whether a. we believe an extension is needed and b. how many 3 or 6 month periods we do believe we believe is needed.
I think given the data we have today a. yes we do need an extension; b. we look at summer (on the northern hemisphere) 2016 for ready date.
And the question now is whether we see any reason to change that.
I guess the open consultations for CWG Names and CCWG Accountability that both have closed before we need to respond will give a good answer to that. For the other OCs, it is more a check whether they have some really hard issues that are problematic to implement. According to what I have seen, the answer to that question is "no".
Because of this, interaction via the ICG members that are active in the OCs plus CCWG Accountability plus the coordination we chairs do between each others will probably give enough data. No reason to create more bureaucracy or process here than needed.
That said, by all means, speak up if you or any other member of ICG do have a different view.
On 23 May 2015, at 11:12, joseph alhadeff wrote:
> Do we need any semblance of coherence in how all communities interpret implementation to assure that their responses make sense when conjoined in our proposal?
> On 5/23/2015 1:16 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> On 23 May 2015, at 6:33, WUKnoben wrote:
>>> My suggestion is to be a little bit more formal meaning that the ICG letter should be addressed to the chairs of the three OCs since the ICG response to NTIA shall be formal, too.
>> Although I did say something different in an earlier response, I agree this can be a good alternative.
>> We as chairs of ICG got the letter, and then the chairs of the OCs can get whatever ICG send.
>> I just do not feel we ICG should push and force the OCs into some processes that are not needed. I want them to have as much freedom as possible to choose whatever process they want to use to be able to respond to the question.
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Internal-cg