It works for me as well.

- a.

On Aug 28, 2014, at 19:19 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

> Me too.
> Alissa
>
> On 8/28/14, 7:26 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Milton's latest proposed modification.
>> Best regards,
>> Jean-Jacques.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
>> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "Paul Wilson"
>> <pwilson@apnic.net>
>> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "joseph
>> alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>
>> Envoyé: Jeudi 28 Août 2014 15:28:12
>> Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
>>
>> As expressed on the call and in my own proposed modification, I do not
>> oppose the sentiment behind JJ's modification.
>> However, in some ways this wording undercuts the more liberal approach to
>> input by saying that we "do not expect full proposals from
>> non-operational communities." To my mind, this creates an unwanted
>> dichotomy between the operational community proposal development process
>> and "everyone else," when what we want is for op and non-operational
>> communities to work together on a proposal.
>>
>> Thus I could support this change only if the first clause is sawed off,
>> to read:
>>
>> "This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational
>> communities."
>>
>> Addressing Joe's concerns about our capacity, etc. I am not worried.
>> While I strongly agree with him that we do not want to encourage groups
>> to go off into their own silos and come up with a proposal in isolation
>> (and I can think of two groups that have a tendency to do that), I think
>> the RFP already puts major emphasis on widespread support for proposals.
>> If anyone "goes silo" they should be prepared for the fact that their
>> ideas will not be part of the final package unless they can show that
>> they have support outside their silo and made a serious effort to gain
>> support from the other parts of the community making a proposal. Also, I
>> do not think we are going to get dozens of actual proposals.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs@dyalog.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:48 PM
>>> To: Paul Wilson
>>> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller; joseph
>>> alhadeff
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
>>>
>>> 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

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg