[Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Thu Sep 10 09:57:55 UTC 2015

Hi Elise,

sorry for the late reaction to your kind message. I’m still interested to visit the IANA office on 17 September at the occasion of the ICG meeting next week. Main interest is to see the IANA staff working environment in order to get an impression which “hardware” we’re talking about besides the complex context thereof. In addition, a little exchange with you and your colleages available would be appreciated.

Some ICG colleagues showed interest to join (Hartmuth, Martin, Joe, Mary, maybe Kuo-Wei Wu) depending on their flight schedule. So we should be a small team somewhat between 1 and 5. I guess around 1 hour would be enough time .

I’d like to ask you not to initiate a big effort around the visit. Perhaps it could be arranged later in the afternoon that we can move thereafter to the reception planned at the hotel (time?). 

Thanks and regards

Wolf-Ulrich

From: Elise Gerich 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 7:16 PM
To: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ; Alissa Cooper 
Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

Dear Wolf-Ulrich and all of you have expressed an interest,

You are certainly welcome to visit the office in Playa Vista, California on Thursday Sept 17th.  Other than seeing where we work and introductions to individuals in the department, it is unclear whether that is worth the trip to our office.  The hotel where the ICG meeting will take place is about 30 minutes by car from our office (that is what Google maps indicates).

Also, Keith Davidson has already planned a working meeting with us to discuss the ccNSO FOI for Thursday afternoon, and we would have to coordinate the visit to not conflict with this previously scheduled meeting.  

Do let me know if you are still interested in visiting the ICANN office in Playa Vista, and we will work to find a time that is mutually convenient.

See you all at the ICG meeting in Los Angeles in September,
-- Elise 

From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:15 PM
To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich at icann.org>, "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

  Dear Elise, all,

  as my travel for the ICG September meeting in LA has now been arranged thanks to ICANN travel department I’m thinking how to make best use of the time available. My wish is to grab the chance and visit the IANA department – in an individual capacity.
  My arrival shall be 12:40 on Thursday Sep 17. There would be time in the afternoon for the visit. If it could be arranged in a non-official way I'd really appreciate. Maybe other ICG colleagues are interested and find time to join.

  Best regards

  Wolf-Ulrich

  From: Elise Gerich 
  Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:44 AM
  To: WUKnoben ; kuoweiwu at gmail.com ; Alissa Cooper 
  Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org 
  Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

  Wolf-Ulrich,
  We are following the assessment of the various proposals and are curious as to what the final impact will be on our current operational structure and the interdependencies of the functions.
  -- Elise 

  From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
  Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
  Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:21 AM
  To: "kuoweiwu at gmail.com" <kuoweiwu at gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
  Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
  Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

    Kuo-Wei,

    I'm glad you raising this point. I've already raised my finger several times 
    in various meetings - including the CSG meeting with the board in BA - in 
    order not to forget the people in the present and future IANA organisation. 
    They are the ones who ensure continuous operational excellence which is 
    crucial with regards to the security, stability and resiliency of the 
    system - one of the basic NTIA requirements.
    Career plan of staff is one element between others.
    I would encourage to outreach at an appropriate time. Maybe Elise as staff 
    liaison could gide us.

    Best regards

    Wolf-Ulrich

    -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
    From: Wu Kuo-Wei
    Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 4:45 PM
    To: Alissa Cooper
    Cc: ICG Coordination Group
    Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thoughts on proposal assessments

    If I may, I like to speak in my personal capacity. If you don’t agree the 
    liaison’s position proper to say anything, you can drop my comment.

      Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> 於 2015年7月8日 06:35 寫道：

      Thank you to everyone who did a names proposal assessment. I wrote down a 
      few thoughts in preparation for our discussion on July 8.

      Both Alan and the names folks (Wolf-Ulrich, Mary, Keith, and Martin) point 
      out that there are areas where more detail will be developed as part of 
      implementation (service levels, IANA budget, PTI budget, etc.). It would 
      be helpful for us to have the definitive list of these for our reference. 
      Is that list somewhere in the proposal (or supporting material)?

    It could be part of implementation. But as name proposal, it try to separate 
    the policy and operator to establish PTI. We might need to get some input 
    from IANA people who will be moved to PTI as name proposal (as the long term 
    stability issue of PTI). It is critical for such design working well for the 
    career development for IANA people in the long run. At the current status, 
    IANA people can move to other department of ICANN for better career plan, 
    and receiving reasonable promotion. We (ICG and ICANN) might need to learn 
    IANA people, not just treat them as “box”. We decide their future, but 
    ignore their voice. So I will suggest to add this into the list other than 
    SLA, budget,..).

    Again, if you don’t agree the liaison position proper to say, please drop my 
    comment.

    Thanks.

    Kuo Wu

      Alan, Russ Housley and Russ Mundy point out that the proposal cannot be 
      considered complete since it is dependent on outputs from the CCWG. My 
      question: does that prevent us in the ICG from moving forward with public 
      comment and proposal finalization while we await the output of the CCWG? 
      My personal view is that it does not but I wanted to check.

      Russ Mundy raises a good question about the Root Zone Maintainer’s 
      relationship to the IFO and I look forward to our discussion of that. I 
      note that the SSAC made a similar comment to the CWG in its approval of 
      the proposal. Again I don’t think this is necessarily blocking on our 
      work, but it might be a detail where we need to seek clarification.

      Alissa

      _______________________________________________
      Internal-cg mailing list
      Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
      http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

    _______________________________________________
    Internal-cg mailing list
    Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
    http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

    _______________________________________________
    Internal-cg mailing list
    Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
    http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  _______________________________________________
  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/20150910/5b07de61/attachment.html>