[Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Wed Jul 22 15:15:44 UTC 2015

Dear Elise, all,

as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department – in an individual capacity.
My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time to join.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Elise Gerich 
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
To: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ; Alissa Cooper 
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Wolf-Ulrich,
We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are curious as to what the final impact will be on our current operational structure and the interdependencies of the functions.
-- Elise 

From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

  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 

  _______________________________________________
  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/20150722/4c8e47d7/attachment.html>