[Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

[Drazek, Keith]

That's my recollection as well. I also agree with Alissa that the dependencies between CWG and CCWG should not prevent us from initiating a preliminary report and public comment period, provided we enumerate and perhaps explain the key dependencies so the public is made aware.

Keith Drazek 

> On Jul 8, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Alissa,
> 
> I'm fine with this approach.  I'm not sure there is a list of "still to be resolved" items, but your summary did not stir any memories of omissions in my mind.  I won't have the chance to assess before the call, but I think we should be able to prepare a list by the end of the week!
> 
> Also in my opinion, the points of reconciliation are well understood - in particular between CWG and CCWG. We did discuss this in BA and I thought we agreed to progress our work in the knowledge that we would need to link back at some stage to ensure that he CWG got what it needed and that there was coherence with the other proposals.
> 
> Best
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: 07 July 2015 23:36
> To: ICG Coordination Group
> Subject: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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
>