[Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Oct 14 17:03:24 UTC 2015


Dear All,
I fully support the position taken by Milton
Kavouss

2015-10-14 16:46 GMT+02:00 Mueller, Milton L <
milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu>:

> That looks good!
>
>
>
> While the CWG proposal contemplates an arrangement between the IFO and the
> RZM, the CWG has confirmed to the ICG that such an arrangement has not been
> specified in the CWG proposal or elsewhere.
>
>
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Mueller, Milton L <
> milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> I still have trouble with this:
>
>
>
> The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement
> between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal
>
>
>
> It’s not that there are no details, it’s that there is no sketch of the
> architecture or requirements for the arrangement at all. So I think my
> original sentence is more accurate: The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to
> the ICG that the creation of an arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has
> not been addressed in their proposal.
>
>
>
> *From:* Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in <alissa at cooperw.in>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:35 PM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L
> *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM
>
>
>
> Hi Milton,
>
>
>
> Jumping down to the text proposal:
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L <
> milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> The CWG-Stewardship has confirmed to the ICG that the creation of an
> arrangement between the IFO and the RZM has not been addressed in their
> proposal. The CWG now prefers to let those relationships be defined by a
> separate and parallel process run by the NTIA.
>
>
>
>
> The ICG believes that if it is to be legitimate and consistent with the
> multistakeholder process, this parallel process must be conducted
> transparently with opportunities for review by the CWG-Stewardship and
> broader public input, and that the written agreement between the IFO and
> RZM establishing each party’s role must be in place by the time of the
> expiry of the NTIA contract.
>
>
>
> MM: So you are ok with this second part?
>
>
>
> Yes, almost. I think in the first two sentences we need to stick a little
> more closely to what we actually received in the CWG response:
>
>
>
> The CWG has confirmed to the ICG that the details of the arrangement
> between the IFO and the RZM have not been addressed in their proposal or
> elsewhere. The CWG understands that those relationships will be defined by
> a separate and parallel process run by the NTIA. The ICG believes that if
> it is to be legitimate and consistent with the multistakeholder process,
> this parallel process must be conducted transparently with opportunities
> for review by the CWG and broader public input, and that the written
> agreement between the IFO and RZM establishing each party’s role must be in
> place by the time of the expiry of the NTIA contract.
>
>
>
> Does this work for you?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151014/44a72db3/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list