Many thanks Paul for the redraft and for triggering this discussion .. I don't have editorial comments yet but I have a couple of questions/general comments: - How many categories of communities are we talking about, 2? 'customer communities of IANA' and 'others'? I can see that we keep referring to 'communities', 'customer communities of IANA', 'all communities of interest', 'other parties with specific interest', which I believe is a bit confusing to anyone who was not part of the discussions .. - I think the draft is a bit sophisticated, focusing on the 3 'customer communities of IANA' .. should we split the draft into 2 in order not to confuse everyone with the specific requirements addressed to the 3 identified IANA customers? - Regarding the 3 customer communities of IANA, I believe we are basically asking for 3 things: 1. Status Quo of current services (guided by the requested information elements) 2. Transition proposal (which I don't see explicitly requested in this draft) 3. Foreseen implications of the transition, on the current services, in light of the submitted proposal Is my understanding accurate? - Generally speaking, can proposals be as long as the submitter wishes? With the tight timeframe we have, should we be guided by NETmundial (there was a limit on the size of submissions) and encourage concise (not sure if this is the right word) proposals? Or are we confident, having already encouraged submissions through the relevant communities? - Finally, what is the deadline for finalizing this draft .. @Russ, I fully agree that ICG should not be accepting or rejecting proposals .. Unless the intention here is that communities may include distinct alternative options, all equally satisfactory to them, where ICG may then choose from the submitted alternatives based on workability and compatibility with the different proposals submitted by other communities .. Just thinking out loud .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:28 PM To: Paul Wilson Cc: ICG Internal Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Redraft of RFP Paul: I have several small concerns, but I am _very_ worried about one sentence. I want to raise that first. Maybe that resolution will sort my smaller concerns too. I am troubled by the statement, "Where possible and appropriate,distinct alternative options should be identified". I don't want the ICG discussing alternatives. I am certain that we do not want the ICG accepting or rejecting alternatives. Maybe I am misunderstanding your intent. Russ On Jul 25, 2014, at 12:03 AM, Paul Wilson wrote:
Thanks to comments from a few of you, here's a further draft of the RFP.
My feeling is that a very structured approach is needed, and I hope that we can gather all the needed information in this way. From the IP addressing community, I think we could provide a detailed and complete response in this format, but other will need to be able to do so too.
I hope this is useful.
Paul.
<Proposal Requirements v5.docx>
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg