[Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc

[joseph alhadeff]

Paul:

I don't see any group necessarily better positioned than ICG for the 
work as we represent the broad range of interested stakeholders on who 
implementation would have impact.  The technical issues will be dealt 
with by the OCs, as appropriate, but the broader issues related to 
process, coordination and transparency are well suited to us.  I have 
not read our conversations as suggesting the role is not appropriate, 
but rather a concern that it is not purely self-appointed.

Joe

On 10/21/2015 5:43 AM, Paul Wilson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Friday we have an agenda slot to discuss ongoing role of ICG in 
> implementation (if any).
>
> My reading of the discussion so far is that we don’t have consensus to 
> change or extend the role of the ICG itself, but we do have some 
> agreement that there is a role in the implementation process which 
> does need to be filled; to track implementation progress, handle 
> communications and any reporting, assist IANA with priorities and 
> sequencing, etc etc. Personally I think it is quite a lightweight 
> role, but an important one nevertheless.
>
> I agree with the comments that this type of role is not for the IGC, 
> but much better for a new working group (by some name and description) 
> which would be freshly established by the OCs. However I do believe 
> that it is within the ICG’s mandate to recommend such a mechanism, as 
> a legitimate part of the plan itself.  It may still then be up to the 
> OCs to agree, then to assign their reps to the group and work out the 
> finer details of its operations.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Paul.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net
> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org