Forwarding on behalf of Milton who is having list email issues ... On 8/22/14, 11:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision
Alas, there are still some unresolved issues here.
I still have to insist that the first and second paragraphs contain language that cover the same topic, but provide different meanings and thus open to door to conflicting interpretations that could cause us trouble. We need to choose one or the other of the meanings and delete the other.
Here is an exegesis:
From the middle of paragraph 1:
"Other parties may provide comments to the ICG on particular aspects that may be covered by proposals that may be of significant interest to them, for review by the ICG as time and resources permit. The ICG will direct comments received from other parties to the relevant operational communities as appropriate."
Paragraph 2:
"During the development of their proposals, the operational communities are expected to consult and work with other affected parties; likewise, other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate in community processes, as the ICG is requiring proposals that have consensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups."
My view is that the material from paragraph 1 must be deleted so as to not confuse people and undermine the message in paragraph 2.
As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1 invites parties to provide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the _plural_ form) that are being considered by the operational communities. To me, this seems to invite people to provide ongoing commentary on the ideas being considered by the operational communities as they develop a proposal or consider alternatives. That is not what we want. We want finished, agreed proposals.
Paragraph 2 is much clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages" affected parties to participate in the operational community process for the same of "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but it does not completely close the door to the receipt of finished alternative proposals where consensus is not possible.
I really think that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 are articulating separate models of response and we cannot allow the RFP to be released with such a critical ambiguity in it.
I also made a few minor changes, related to labeling IIA as Policy source and the second bullet point under IIB
I also responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness. My point is that various proposals might come up with different ways of excluding or separating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can’t use the existing method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is simply asking them to explain the implications of their changes for existing policy arrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this issue, because it says almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B. So do we need it at all?
Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know what kind of a parallel universe the rest of you live in, but in the world I have become familiar with as a social scientist, there is no "testing" of legal and institutional accountability arrangements. We can project or estimate based on past experience, but that is all. If there are technical and operational changes called for by a proposal, yes, we can talk about pre-testing them in some kind of laboratory set up. But asking people to "test" what will happen if the NTIA is not there and some other accountability mechanism is, is asking for the impossible. So I have altered the language to deal with this.
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PM To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision
I took one more stab at this — v10 attached and uploaded.
There was some new text in v09(jha) about how people should feel free to comment to us about transparency, completeness, etc. I think that is true as a general matter, but that is not what we are asking for specifically in this RFP. That is what we will ask for — from anyone who cares to answer — after we have the proposal components submitted (by December :)). So I removed that text.
I also found the new first paragraph quite confusing — it said we are issuing this RFP “for consideration” by all parties, which makes it sound like we’re asking people to comment on the RFP itself, rather than submit proposals. So, I did some editing on the first two paragraphs, and also tried to work in the good suggestion from Manal that we re-emphasize that we will direct comments to the operational communities where we can. Here is how the first two paragraphs read now:
"The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is seeking complete formal responses to this Request for Proposals (RFP) from the “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA; namely names, numbers, protocol parameters). Other interested and affected parties are strongly encouraged to provide their inputs through open processes run by these operational communities. Other parties may provide comments to the ICG on particular aspects that may be covered by proposals that may be of significant interest to them, for review by the ICG as time and resources permit. The ICG will direct comments received from other parties to the relevant operational communities as appropriate.
During the development of their proposals, the operational communities are expected to consult and work with other affected parties; likewise, other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate in community processes, as the ICG is requiring proposals that have consensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups.”
In section 0, I edited “change” to “address” in "Identify which category of the IANA functions this submission proposes to change” since some communities might propose no changes.
In section 4 I still think there are three bullet points that need elaboration, of just one sentence each, because they are not clear on their face:
·Continuity of service requirements ·Risks ·Service integration aspects
For example, “Risks” seems so vague that each community could write a novel about them and not be complete. What are we really looking for here?
Thanks, Alissa
On 8/19/14, 8:50 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I have uploaded v9(jha) with a few suggested edits to further clarify the operational vs impacted communities comment process... Also a question of whether testing should be limited to Section III - are those the only changes contemplated that could impact stability and functionality?
I think we are getting pretty close to a final draft...
Joe On 8/19/2014 11:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Paul: Done. It is uploaded as docx as version 09. Also proposed some minor clarity changes to the preamble and added a comment responding to Martin's nervousness. We can't have Martin being nervous.
Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:05 AM To: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision
Milton, thanks for your comments on the "section 0" part. this adds some needed clarity about the whole orientation of this process.
If you can, please make further edits to the version 8 document linked below.
Paul.
On 19 Aug 2014, at 9:30 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
Apologies for the delay, a new RFP revision is now online:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%
20v08.docx
Paul
On 19 Aug 2014, at 8:52 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
> Dear all, > > I am in the process of reconciling all inputs on the latest RFP >document,
and will have a clean version available in Dropbox shortly.
> My intention is to go run this document sequentially during > tonight's meeting, seeking ICG members' views and suggestions. > Thanks, > > Paul. > > > >
______________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> > http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 >3100 > > See you at APNIC 38! >http://conference.apnic.net/38 > > > > >
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg