[Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

[Wu Kuo-Wei]

If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.
 
> Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：
> 
> 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)?

It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to separate the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long term stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for the career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status, IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan, and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than SLA, budget,..).

Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop my comment.

Thanks.

Kuo Wu
 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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