[Internal-cg] FW: Q4 Summary Draft

[Jennifer Chung]

Dear All,

Per Daniel, please see below for the summary text for workability.

This text has been uploaded to Dropbox for your reference:
http://icgsec.asia/1L4PfBu 

Best Regards,

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 2:57 AM
To: Jennifer Chung <jen at icgsec.asia>
Cc: Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>; admin at icgsec.asia
Subject: Re: Q4 Summary Draft

Jennifer,

Paul had no comments so far. So please take this as the text for
workability. Afaic this completes our action item.

Daniel

On 6.10.15 11:52 , Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> here is my final draft of the Q4 Summary. Apologies for the timing. I 
> had a number of "real world" tasks that interfered. I have kept it 
> short and subjective rather than quoting or summarising extensively. 
> Let me know if this is OK with you. Happy to see any suggestions for
improvement.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> ------
> 
> The majority of commenters who answered the question considered the 
> transition proposal to be workable.  Many noted that coordination 
> between the OCs is necessary during the implementation phase.
> 
> A number of commenters flatly stated that the proposal was unworkable 
> because they disagreed with the transition as such.  A few others 
> flatly stated that the proposal was unworkable without giving specific 
> reasons for this.  We counted those as comments as "not workable", 
> even though they were not helpful in detecting any issues or 
> suggesting any improvements.
> 
> Multiple commenters requested clarification on how the Protocol 
> Parameters and Numbers communities would interact with PTI.  This was 
> indeed not clear yet at the time of this request for comments.  The 
> operational communities have since stated that they intend to contract 
> with ICANN and to refrain from participating in PTI.
> [ref to Alissa's words on this]
> 
> A number of comments referred to the workability of accountability 
> mechanisms that are outside the scope of this proposal.  We encourage 
> commenters to make these comments in the appropriate process.
> 
> Based on all comments received we have not identified any major 
> workability issues with this proposal, provided that the OCs ensure 
> appropriate coordination both during and after the implementation.
>