Alissa,

May I suggest that the language in the RFP be consistent in using “IANA functions” instead of IANA services and other substitutes?  There are services that are performed by the IANA department that are not IANA functions; for example the time zone database.  Using substitutes for “IANA functions” may lead to submissions that include things that are not within the IANA Functions contract with the USG.

For example in version 10, Item I. "Description of Community’s Use of IANA” could be interpreted to include all of the things done by the IANA Department within ICANN and not just the things that are done as part of the IANA Functions Contract. Another example is the use of “IANA services” as a substitute for “IANA functions”.  

Thank you,
-- Elise 


From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2014 at 5:40 PM
To: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <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



-----Original Message-----
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:


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
http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858
3100

See you at APNIC 38!





_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list