[Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

[Joseph Alhadeff]

Agree, except to the extent that the names proposal may overlap work stream 1 - that will be incorporated.

Which brings me to a question I raised in chat on the last call.  Some proposals go into operational detail that is beyond our remit of consideration for transition.  Do we include those aspects directly in the assembled proposal, or do we include them as informative annex material?

Joe

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 9, 2015, at 7:10 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> 
> On 9 Jul 2015, at 21:01, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> 
>>> This is mistaken because the CCWG's work (workstream 1) will be formally incorporated into the CWG proposal.
>>> NTIA has made it clear that they are basically part of the same proposal, and we are responsible for sending them to NTIA.
>> 
>> I do not believe that is the plan actually. I thought they will remain two separate documents and while they will both be transmitted to NTIA via the ICANN Board, they will not be incorporated into a single document or even necessarily transmitted at the same time or in the same communication between the Board and NTIA.
> 
> Speaking personally, I have always expected the possibility of references between the two documents, but never that one was incorporated into the other. ICG and CCWG [work stream 1] are parallell processes. Not one being the parent of the other.
> 
> Two documents that are submitted to NTIA.
> 
> Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
>   Patrik
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org