[Internal-cg] Public comment period

Sat Jul 11 18:11:05 UTC 2015

Thank you Kavouss, Patrik, Alissa and others for the constructive exchanges. I do not think the commitment of anyone in the group is questionable. 
I wish to lend my support to the 40 days comment period plan as proposed by Alissa and supported by others.However, I think it would be more meaningful to have the public comment on the proposal that is complete with the WS1 of CCWG incorporated by CWG and resubmitted to the ICG  (or fully accepted by CWG and communicated to the ICG), and also without any square brackets.Kavouss' advice point 3 is very apt.

Mary Uduma

     On Saturday, July 11, 2015 6:32 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

 Dear AlissaDear PatrikDear All Thank you very much to Alissa and Patrik for their clear position.As for overlapping Vacation,we need to recognize that the entire community carefully watching our reaction .We have an established time line which MUST BE MET.Each of us SHALL contribute and make sacrifice. Perhaps there would be no or very few days of Vacation  I am attending several calls per day for various CCWG Working Groups and sub working groups.I have missed one or two but continue to actively attend.We have an obligation to discharge as we have accepted to do so.I sincerely encourage every body to adjust his or her personal program to Transition activities .We are  AN international custodian PUBLIC SEFRVANTRegardsKavouss  

2015-07-11 17:41 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:

On 11 Jul 2015, at 17:33, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

> 1,First To Patrik
> You said in yr message
> quote
> *"I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy."*
> Unquote
> I do not know whom you are referring ?
> However, whoever you had in in this kind of statement is INAPPROPRIATE

Dear Kavouss,

No one has so far requested any change, the contrary, and I am proud being part of this work where people are working so hard and delivering.

The discussion was about envisioned objections when we announce when we will have our public comment period, and I stated my view of reasoning for listening to those objections.

I will absolutely, as I expect everyone of ICG do, listen to real issues that might have impact on our timeline. But I will not listen to, for example, people in Sweden that point out the 40 day period is overlapping with their vacation.

> 2.To Alidssa
> Pls kindly maintain exact 40 days as public comment and
> Pls kindly do not cancel the f2f nor change it date as I have booked the flight ( to be cheap I book always very early) due to the fact that I have to pay penalty of 500 Swiss Francs from my personal pocket

Kavouss, not only you would be in that situation... I would also be in a similar situation, and many with us.

The train has left the station. Our timeline is as it is, and once again, I am proud of being part of a crowd like ICG that is working so hard trying to meet all our goals -- without at the same time cutting any corners or ignoring comments. Even if timeline is important, high quality work is more important.

> 3. CCWG  the activities of which might have impact on our works relating , in particular, the CWG will held its last f2f meeting before its second public comment soon. We need to carefully monitor that as I am doing carefully
> Then DO NOT FIX ANY TIME TILL 21 July when that f2f meeting is over

Noted. I will do the best I can to accommodate this.

   Patrik

> Kavouss  which
>
>
> 2015-07-11 16:07 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>:
>
>> Joe,
>>
>> Well spoken, good advice!
>>
>> Patrik
>>
>> On 11 Jul 2015, at 14:42, Joseph Alhadeff wrote:
>>
>>> Colleagues
>>>
>>> I will be taking the sum total of one week off for the summer, so you
>> need not impress on me the fact that people work and have
>> responsibilities.  I am highlighting what may well be part of the public
>> reaction to the timeline.  If we stick to this timeline, let us make a very
>> broadly spread announcement about it early next week so no one can claim
>> that they didn't know about the urgency of comments until after their
>> summer vacation began. We should also underline the need to complete this
>> work expeditiously and therefore these are not just arbitrary dates.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>> On Jul 11, 2015, at 1:51 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Milton, others,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the clarification. Let me strengthen the wording you use
>> Alissa bit more.
>>>>
>>>> Due to the timeline we have, the fact there is interest in completing
>> this business in time, that so many individuals do work day, night,
>> weekends and who knows how much time they spend, AND that the timeline is
>> known long in advance and more importantly, the work is done in the open
>> with ability to do preliminary assessments all along the way....
>>>>
>>>> --->>> I am not a person that accept delays due to people being lazy.
>>>>
>>>> A potential delay is something we ICG should introduce if we see
>> unknowns appearing. New steps we have to take. New things we had not
>> planned for that takes time. New things we must do to ensure we produce
>> high quality result.
>>>>
>>>> If people complain because they are on vacation, like maybe many people
>> from Sweden will do, send them to me :-)
>>>>
>>>> Patrik
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Yes, I missed part of the call and discussions Wednesday this week
>> due to travel and meetings in Paris...yes, I could have prioritized
>> differently BUT, I would have missed a dinner with EARN people that I have
>> not met for 10+ years etc etc. Conclusion: Each one of us do and have to
>> prioritize OUR work, which I did, and I expect all of you to do, but as a
>> result I did NOT ask ICG to slow down for a few days because of my
>> [excellent] dinner in Paris. The contrary, I know I now have to work during
>> the weekend to catch up!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 11 Jul 2015, at 4:24, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alissa,
>>>>> Sorry my comment was not clear. I meant to agree with your proposal
>> for a 40-day comment period.
>>>>> I was responding to those who proposed 30 days, and agreeing with Joe
>> that if the entire period was in August it would not be seen as credible. I
>> don't however think we need another week in September as Joe suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>> --MM
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:17 PM
>>>>>> To: Milton L Mueller
>>>>>> Cc: Joseph Alhadeff; internal-cg at ianacg.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be clear, my proposal is not to do something less than 40 days. It
>> is to do
>>>>>> 40 days exactly. E.g., July 31 to Sept 8.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we have to have two full weeks of public comment in September, we
>>>>>> should probably cancel our F2F meeting. There is no point in us all
>> traveling
>>>>>> to meet in person when we won't have done hardly any analysis of the
>>>>>> public comments received at the end of the public comment period.
>> Also,
>>>>>> what counts as a full week? Do these people whose vacations will be
>> upset
>>>>>> by a nearly 6-week public comment period count the first week of
>> September
>>>>>> as a "full week" even though it includes one day of August?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will admit to being a bit frustrated with this line of argument.
>> All of us and
>>>>>> the people in the communities have been going to great lengths and
>> making
>>>>>> significant sacrifices to do the work that the transition requires,
>> including
>>>>>> joining phone conferences in the middle of the night and from remote
>>>>>> locales, staying up all night working on parts of the proposals,
>> flying around
>>>>>> the world to have contentious meetings, and taking time away from our
>>>>>> families and day jobs to volunteer our time for this. If commenters
>> can't find
>>>>>> a bit of time within a 40-day window that spans both August and
>> September
>>>>>> to gather their thoughts on the proposal, then perhaps we need not
>> balance
>>>>>> our needs against how little regard they will have given to the
>> transition
>>>>>> process. To put it another way, I don't think we should blow our
>> timeline to
>>>>>> accommodate people who don't care enough about the transition to
>>>>>> comment on it given a nearly 6-week-long window in which to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed. We will get complaints from Europe and complaints from the DC
>>>>>>> lawyers who were already complaining about CWG's less than 40-day
>>>>>>> comment periods
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A comment period that is mostly during august will not be seen as
>>>>>> credible..
>>>>>>>> we need at least 2 weeks in september..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in]
>>>>>>>> Received: Thursday, 09 Jul 2015, 6:30PM
>>>>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
>>>>>>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] Public comment period
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We had a preliminary discussion in Buenos Aires about the length of
>>>>>>>> our public comment period and I'd like to continue that here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our last call of this month is on July 29. If we agree on that call
>>>>>>>> that we're ready to put the combined proposal to public comment,
>> then
>>>>>>>> we'll be looking at a launch around July 31 (giving a day or two to
>>>>>>>> prep the web site and other materials after the call). A 40-day
>>>>>>>> comment period would then end on September 8. That would provide 7
>>>>>>>> working days between the end of the public comment period and our
>> F2F
>>>>>>>> meeting to analyze the public comments and coalesce them in some
>> form
>>>>>>>> for discussion at the F2F. This is very tight timing, but doable in
>>>>>>>> my opinion. So I think we should make this the provisional plan, of
>> course
>>>>>> subject to change if we need to change it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150711/294e9c9f/attachment.html>