[Internal-cg] Implementation plan, steering group etc

[Lynn St.Amour]

Jari,

thank you, this is a more complete articulation, and I support it fully.

The more we can make it clear that the communities are responsible for establishing requirements (and IANA implements) the more we will help the world understand the model we all actually work to.

Lynn

On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:43 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:

> A couple of points.
> 
> First, agree that there are several topics and several teams working together here. For instance, I feel that an IETF-ICANN SLA is something that we do between the ICANN and the IETF, and we won’t be needing too many other parties in that discussion. And the IPR topic is something that I think the three communities need to work on a requirements level, until the matter can be turned over to our admins and lawyers. PTI is something that is largely a matter of ICANN implementing, and then checking with CWG that they are happy. Although the rest of us may benefit from understanding status.
> 
> I think I’d emphasise the role of the OCs in this. Not all of the effort is on IANA (or ICANN), even if they obvious are impacted in most if it not all issues.
> 
> On priorities, I think it is actually simpler than the thickness of the document may let us to believe. Two communities have very small operational changes, changes being focused mostly on things like agreements. In some cases those agreements already exist and just await signing. I have a difficulty imagining any of those issues are going to be an issue for prioritisation. A bulk of the bigger changes are due CWG’s plan, quite appropriately, because more work needed there. But I think this also implies that the discussion between the priority of those various changes is probably something to be had between CWG and IANA. Subsidiarity principle.
> 
> So I think I’m roughly where I was before: not opposed to someone like the ICG or a new group doing high-level tracking. But 99.5% of the work is in naturally forming groups, of different compositions. I believe we the iCG should direct as much of the work to be done as low in the organisation as possible. Also, should there be issues or disagreements, I also believe that the OCs are more than capable of raising issues to the rest of us or even public as needed.
> 
> (And for the record, I’m involved in setting up or participating in many of these discussions. We’ve been active on public and private discussions around next steps in IPR discussions, for instance.)
> 
> Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org