[Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment

James M. Bladel jbladel at godaddy.com
Fri Apr 24 23:16:01 UTC 2015

Agree with Milton's points here.  We do not want to be seen as "steering" the finalization of this proposal, or treating it inconsistently than the other two.



From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>
Date: Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 9:20
To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk<mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>>, "internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>" <internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment

I agree that we should be assessing the CWG names proposal based on this draft, but this would be an internal discussion and evaluation. While we can ask clarification questions of the CWG, I would caution against us using the public comment period or filing formal comments in the public comment period to do this. (I don't think anyone is suggesting that, but I can't tell for sure from these comments.)

I think it would be inappropriate for the ICG to file public comments; it would indicate that we collectively have an opinion on what the names CWG should do. The ICG did not file public comments during the development of either of the other two proposals and most of us would have considered it inappropriate for us to be expressing opinions about what a specific operational community was doing. Any member of this group can of course file comments on their own behalf or as part of a stakeholder group interested in the names

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:40 AM
To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment

I think Wolf-Ulrich is exactly right - we should be using the period of the consultation to ask any questions that we have, in particular to clarify how the names proposal will interface with the other proposals.  Indeed, as a Coordination Group, I would see ensuring coherence between the proposals as an important role best not left until we try to fit the elements together.  (It is also a job where Milton has been active, working in the three different groups I believe.)

So thanks Wolf-Ulrich for proposing this.


From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: 22 April 2015 16:16
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG proposal preassessment

Dear All,

Please see Wolf-Ulrich's email below.


From: WUKnoben<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:26 PM
To:internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>
Subject: CWG proposal preassessment


in the chat of the ICG call today I made a suggestion that we shouldn't just wait until the CWG provides us with their proposal formally. Rather than we could take the version going on public comment for a preliminary assessment. I think this would be of advantage first with respect to the amount of work to be done in the future by ICG and secondly with respect to potential iterations between CWG and ICG.

If this approach can find ICG approval I'm prepared to volunteer together with other colleagues.

Best regards

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150424/6b5557c6/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list