[Internal-cg] Agenda - call #25, Sept 23

[Alissa Cooper]

Hi Kavouss,

Thanks. The proposed updates to Part 0 that were assigned to various people at the F2F are due Sept 27 for review on the mailing list next week.

Alissa

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 12:40 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Alissa,
> Tks
> I provided a short brief on the ICG f2f to CCWG call 52 held on 05-07 am today
> By the way what is the situation for modifications to part Zero?
> Kavouss
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 22 Sep 2015, at 12:22, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
> 
>> I think the positions of both the IETF and the RIRs are clear. See IAB comments <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission72.pdf <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission72.pdf>>, CRISP team comments <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission133.pdf <https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission133.pdf>>, and the RIRs’ draft SLA <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf <https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf>>. I also took an action (action item #6) to write this up for Part 0 so it will be clear in the proposal.
>> 
>> Alissa
>> 
>>> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 22.09.15 18:56 , Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>> I also should have said: the goal is to agree final text of notes to be
>>>> sent to the OCs by the end of the call or shortly thereafter, if
>>>> possible. So if sub-teams are proposing to ask questions or send notes
>>>> to the OCs, they should send the text to the list before the call if at
>>>> all possible.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A recurring question in the "Workability/Q4" comments is about the
>>> relationship of Protocol Parameters and Numbers to PTI. The RIRs have
>>> stated that they expect to contract with ICANN albeit that Alan has
>>> indicated some flexibility in the matter at our previous meeting. I
>>> cannot find a strong statement from the IETF, is there one?
>>> 
>>> I do not think we need to send a formal question about this at this time
>>> because I expect such statements from both these OCs to their
>>> communities anyway which we can use.
>>> 
>>> If anyone feels that this indeed warrants the overhead of formal
>>> questions, they should says so now so that we see if that has sufficient
>>> support to ask these questions.
>>> 
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150922/2f200f71/attachment.html>