<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV>In this separate intro I'd place Miltons suggestion to explain what IANA is
<U>and does </U>(the latter seems to me more important).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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 \u2013 but I\u2019m not yet sure \u2013 whether something should be
written with regards to the work of the CCWG-accountability and how their input
is taken.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best regards</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Wolf-Ulrich</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- </DIV>
<DIV>From: Milton L Mueller </DIV>
<DIV>Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:56 AM </DIV>
<DIV>To: Alissa Cooper ; internal-cg@ianacg.org </DIV>
<DIV>Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> -----Original Message-----</DIV>
<DIV>> What points are important to make in the preface? Off the top of my
head, I</DIV>
<DIV>> would say we need at the very least:</DIV>
<DIV>> - High-level summary of the proposal</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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." </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> - High-level summary of the process used to produce the proposal -
both</DIV>
<DIV>> the community processes and our process</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> - Our assessment of how/why the proposal meets the NTIA criteria</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> I'm willing to write a first draft of the preface but would like a few
volunteers</DIV>
<DIV>> to form a small editing team before we bring it back to the full ICG.
Who is</DIV>
<DIV>> willing to volunteer? (Jean-Jacques, can I assume you are?)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Willing to volunteer but advance warning that I will be unable to do much
in the July 15 - 24 time frame. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>_______________________________________________</DIV>
<DIV>Internal-cg mailing list</DIV>
<DIV>Internal-cg@mm.ianacg.org</DIV>
<DIV>http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>