Is it possible for ICG to allow Elise to help to edit the “wording” since she like to help? Kuo Wu Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> 於 2014/8/26 11:23 寫道：
All,
Hmm...."IANA" is, and here I quote SAC-067:
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is a traditional name used “to refer to the technical team making and publishing assignments of Internet protocol technical parameters.” This technical team performs a set of tasks that involve the administration or coordination of many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to operate. These tasks are currently performed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) under a set of agreements including:
1) a contract with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce;
2) a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF);
3) an MoU with the Regional Internet Registries;
4) agreements with some root server operators;
5) contracts, MoUs, and other agreements with country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) administrators; and
6) a number of contracts with generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) administrators.
Question, are we to in the RFP state that the scope be what is covered by the contract between NTIA and ICANN, (1) above, or do we allow the responses to be more generic?
Patrik
On 26 aug 2014, at 04:32, Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
Speaking as the liaison from the IANA functions operator, please note that many places in the existing text reference “IANA” as if it is an independent entity, which it is not. For example:
(i.e., those with direct operational or service relationship with IANA; namely names, numbers, protocol parameters).
No group has a service relationship with “IANA”. All the service relationships are with ICANN as the IANA functions operator.
This is just one example. I have been hesitant to make revisions that correct this incorrect usage of IANA in the document because of the concern many have expressed about write privileges for liaisons. There are many instances that incorrectly use the term IANA in the RFP. I am volunteering to make the corrections in the draft with editing turned, if you are willing for me to do so.
Regards, -- Elise
From: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> Date: Monday, August 25, 2014 at 4:36 AM To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Hi all,
Sorry about the delay in responding on this: a time-zone problem associated with a public holiday weekend.
I agree that this is very close, so thanks to all who've done so much to pull together the disparate comments and editing: a job well done.
However, I am struggling in a couple of places where I don't really understand the intention of the wording - cross-referencing with the current NTIA contract and on the element of risks and "new service integration" (we should not be extending the services) most notably.
But my main concern remains on the interface between the policy and IANA: it feels to me that we are almost encouraging people to solve non-IANA transition problems using this RFP. I've made suggested edits to the second bullet under II.b and under section III.
I'd make one editorial plea (as I tried to work out which bits fell within which subdivisions): could we have a go at some coherence in numbering. My heart sank as I came to the second section 0!
I've posted to dropbox, but also attached my marked-up version.
Cheers
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: 23 August 2014 15:32 To: Alissa Cooper; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Alissa, all I think the RFP is just about good to go. I uncovered some minor editorial changes:
1. first sentence of p. 3: "The ICG encourage each community " should be "The ICG encourages each community"
2. On p. 3 need link to IANA functions contract
3. Delete the second "not" from the second bullet point under II.B • If not all policy sources identified in Section II.A are not affected, identify which ones are affected.
4. Last section has some formatting issues. The bullet point about replacing NTIA with governments has been smushed into the prior point about maintaining the openness of the Internet. It should be a separate bullet point. The last bullet in the list, which asks them to explain how they meet the NTIA criteria, should not be a bullet point but a normal sentence. After the format corrections, it should look like this:
Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal must meet the following five requirements:
• Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; • Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS; • Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; • Maintain the openness of the Internet. • The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.
This section should explain how your community’s proposal meets these requirements and how its respond to the global interest in the IANA function.
I made all these (hopefully uncontroversial) edits and renumbered to "lucky" v13, and uploaded to Dropbox
Milton L Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org
_______________________________________________ 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