[Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

[WUKnoben]

Kuo-Wei,

I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger several times 
in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in BA - in 
order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA organisation. 
They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence which is 
crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the 
system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
Career plan of staff is one element between others.
I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise as staff 
liaison could gide us.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Wu Kuo-Wei
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: ICG Coordination Group
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

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


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org