Dear Colleagues,

following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a friendly amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the draft RFP:

"Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational
communities, this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."

With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of the draft RFP.

Best regards,

Jean-Jacques.




----- Mail original -----

De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>
À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net>
Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>
Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35

Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup

If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a friendly amendment. Thanks.

Jean-Jacques.




----- Mail original -----
De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net>
À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>
Cc: internal-cg@icann.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup


It works for me too.  Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled?

It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits.

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





On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

> On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm fine with Milton's language,
>
> Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
>
>> though I want to make sure that while
>> operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious
>> review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive
>> at consensus...
>
> To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each
> process, but that each proposal document "An
> assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal,
> including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the
> last sentence of the RFP explains.
>
>> The operational community's knowledge of functional
>> requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions
>> related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance
>> of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and
>> accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups  We cannot require
>> processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to
>> endanger the ability to reach conclusion.  All groups have tight time
>> frames to work under.
>
> The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad
> consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is
> accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps
> “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to
> produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all
> interested parties."
>
>>
>> I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and
>> stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying
>> exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.
>
> This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
>
> "The  ICG     will    then    develop a       draft   final   proposal
> that  achieves        rough   consensus       within  the     ICG     itself. The     ICG     will    then    put
> this
> proposal      up      for     public  comment involving a     reasonable      period  of      time    for
> reviewing     the     draft   proposal,       analyzing       and     preparing       supportive      or      critica
> l
> comments.     The     ICG     will    then    review  these   comments        and     determine       whether
> modifications are     required.       If      no      modifications   are     needed, and     the
> coordination  group   agrees, the     proposal        will    be      submitted       to      NTIA.”
>
> I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the
> stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point
> readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
>
> Alissa
>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>>> The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests
>>>> “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational
>>>> or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers,
>>>> or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal
>>>> responses to this RFP.
>>> I do like your approach Milton even better.
>>>
>>>> Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how?
>>> I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various
>>> stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact
>>> involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I
>>> understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate
>>> phase 2 stage in a more formal manner

_______________________________________________
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