[Internal-cg] What to do about the RZM

[Alissa Cooper]

I have reflected this in v3. https://www.dropbox.com/s/x2nbnucfpo257kj/IANA-transition-proposal-v3.docx?dl=0 <https://www.dropbox.com/s/x2nbnucfpo257kj/IANA-transition-proposal-v3.docx?dl=0>

Alissa


> On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:35 PM
> To: Mueller, Milton L
> Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_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/20151015/449b16c0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IANA-transition-proposal-v3.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 951645 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151015/449b16c0/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20151015/449b16c0/attachment-0001.html>