[Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

[Paul Wilson]

On 8 Jul 2015, at 8:35, Alissa Cooper wrote:

> Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote 
> down a few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.
>
> Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) 
> point out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as 
> part of implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, 
> etc.). It would be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these 
> for our reference. Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or 
> supporting material)?
>
> Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot 
> be considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. 
> My question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with 
> public comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of 
> the CCWG? My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.

I agree we should move forward.

Paul.


>
> Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s 
> relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. 
> I note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval 
> of the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on 
> our work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek 
> clarification.
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg