Paul: I still think we need to make a better delineation between operational and non operational communities. I agree that we should not strictly limit the number of submissions from operational communities. If a subcommunity of an operational community thinks that they need to make a separate proposal so be it. That should not also be an invitation to non-operational communities to submit proposals. They are welcome to submit comments on our process, on our RFP, on the operational community processes (not transparent, not inclusive..). But the role of non-operational communities should be to comment within the operational community processes and then upon publication of the proposal drafts to comment on them. There could also be the possibility of their commenting on aspects of the issues which they feel are most important to them - for example what the minimum of accountability should be. But our text still sounds like we will consider complete proposals, which I don't think we should accept... Joe On 8/19/2014 7:30 AM, Paul Wilson 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