<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Mary, all,</div><div><br></div><div>Ive done some editing on the executive summary. Most of it is editorial but one piece that struck me as missing was a summary of the proposals themselves. I took the summary text from Part 0 and tried to shrink it further and added it here.</div><div><br></div><div>Per Manals comments re comment process and timeline: I dont think either of those belong in the executive summary, nor in the ICG report. The public comment process instructions will all be on the public comment web site and I think its useful to maintain the separation between the substantive content of the document and the instructions and extra material relating to the public comment process. As for the timeline information, we have communicated separately about that to NTIA and the public, so I dont see a need to re-hash it in the proposal or the executive summary. Readers should be focusing on the content of the document and the timeline material was primarily for the purpose of NTIAs decision regarding the contract extension, which is a separate issue.</div><div><br></div><div>Responses to Marys points are below.</div><br><div><div>On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:11 PM, Mary Uduma <<a href="mailto:mnuduma@yahoo.com">mnuduma@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; position: static; z-index: auto;"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_12597">Jennifer and All,</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_12598"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_10010" dir="ltr">I wrote comments direct at the dropbox regarding the Executive summary. Pardon me if I did it wrongly.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_10011" dir="ltr">Below are my comments and I hope it can still be taken into consideration.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_10012" dir="ltr"><br class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_12641"></div><div class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_15761" data-canvas-width="397.20041757007033" style="left: 86.1176px; top: 88.5611px; font-size: 13.2047px; font-family: sans-serif;">"The ICG has concluded that the names proposal is complete</div><div class="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_15771" data-canvas-width="175.60226870183524" style="left: 473.934px; top: 118.702px; font-size: 13.2047px; font-family: sans-serif;">on the condition that the...................., are concluded"</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_15772" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_17416" dir="ltr">I am still struggling with this assertion of conclusion by the ICG as there are some incomplete/outstanding issues in the names proposal.viz<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_20582" dir="ltr">The CCWG work stream 1 ongoing process mentioned in the section<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I thought we concluded this on the last call, just as it is in the document now that we only consider the names proposal complete pending the completion of CCWG Workstream 1.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; position: static; z-index: auto;"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_25050" dir="ltr">The CP-! issue Vs the Framework of Interpretation, RFC 1591 on ccTLD</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I thought we resolved this on the last call given that Keith raised this issue and seemed satisfied with the result.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; position: static; z-index: auto;"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_25051" dir="ltr">The placehold regarding the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://iana.org/">iana.org</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>issue,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is an implementation issue and clearly labeled as such in the proposal. We cannot expect all implementation issues to be finished before we consider the proposal complete, otherwise we will never finish. Many of them cannot be finished until it is known whether the proposal is accepted by the USG (precisely why it is called a proposal I think).</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; position: static; z-index: auto;"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_50099" dir="ltr">The incomplete SLE, etc<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is also an implementation issue. All three of the communities are working on their service level agreements, but none of these are gating on the proposal going froward.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; position: static; z-index: auto;"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_25052" dir="ltr">Except I omitted some communications within the ICG, I feel the proposal is not complete without resolutions of these issues.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_34543" dir="ltr">I did suggest or asked if the paragraph could be reworded to "noting" instead of "concluded" since the ICG would still have to make a determination on the completeness of the names proposal after the CCWG work S1 is accepted by the names community. ("<b id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_39644">At that point the ICG will make a final determination as to whether it considers the names proposal to be complete</b>)</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I have made this edit in the attached.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; position: static; z-index: auto;"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_39647" dir="ltr">However, if the ICG had concluded that the proposal is complete inspite of the oustandings, the WS1 of the CCWG, kindly clarify. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I thought this is what we concluded on the last call.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; position: static; z-index: auto;"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_13174" class="qtdSeparateBR"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_39645">My second comment was on the workability section.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_39646">Does the ICG not consider the layers of revews in the names proposal and those of the other two proposals a workability issue? I do see workability issue here and would request that this question be included in the matrix of questions.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437972049038_51092">"How will the layers or multiple reviews in the names proposal and those in the other two communities' proposals inpact on IFO's service delivery?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I thought we also concluded this on the last call, namely that the IANA department is already subject to multiple reviews from the different communities, so the proposed combination of reviews is something that the department is already accustomed to handling. I would expect as well that the division of labor within the department is such that handling the reviews is manageable (e.g., at the IETF the protocol parameters staff are the folks involved in the performance reviews and reporting and I wouldnt expect them to also be involved in the reviews for the other functions if they do not actually work on the other functions).</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Alissa</div><div><br></div><div></div></div></body></html>