Forwarding on behalf of Milton who is having list email issues ... On 8/22/14, 11:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision
Alas, there are still some unresolved issues here.
I still have to insist that the first and second paragraphs contain language that cover the same topic, but provide different meanings and thus open to door to conflicting interpretations that could cause us trouble. We need to choose one or the other of the meanings and delete the other.
Here is an exegesis:
From the middle of paragraph 1:
"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."
Paragraph 2:
"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."
My view is that the material from paragraph 1 must be deleted so as to not confuse people and undermine the message in paragraph 2.
As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1 invites parties to provide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the _plural_ form) that are being considered by the operational communities. To me, this seems to invite people to provide ongoing commentary on the ideas being considered by the operational communities as they develop a proposal or consider alternatives. That is not what we want. We want finished, agreed proposals.
Paragraph 2 is much clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages" affected parties to participate in the operational community process for the same of "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but it does not completely close the door to the receipt of finished alternative proposals where consensus is not possible.
I really think that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 are articulating separate models of response and we cannot allow the RFP to be released with such a critical ambiguity in it.
I also made a few minor changes, related to labeling IIA as Policy source and the second bullet point under IIB
I also responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness. My point is that various proposals might come up with different ways of excluding or separating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can’t use the existing method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is simply asking them to explain the implications of their changes for existing policy arrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this issue, because it says almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B. So do we need it at all?
Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know what kind of a parallel universe the rest of you live in, but in the world I have become familiar with as a social scientist, there is no "testing" of legal and institutional accountability arrangements. We can project or estimate based on past experience, but that is all. If there are technical and operational changes called for by a proposal, yes, we can talk about pre-testing them in some kind of laboratory set up. But asking people to "test" what will happen if the NTIA is not there and some other accountability mechanism is, is asking for the impossible. So I have altered the language to deal with this.
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PM To: joseph alhadeff; 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 http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- 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:
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
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
Milton: I have been a strong proponent of making sure that proposals are developed only in the communities, but I am not convinced that those processes will necessarily be accessible beyond the normal members of and participants to that community. If there is a specific issue of interest, such as accountability, and there is a specific opinion on that I think we need to be open to those comments. We can try to make the timing of more general stakeholder comments coincide with the publication of the proposal for comments, but we need a section that better addresses how we are open to comments outside of the drafting communities and how and when they can participate in our process. Joe On 8/22/2014 3:19 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Forwarding on behalf of Milton who is having list email issues ...
On 8/22/14, 11:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision
Alas, there are still some unresolved issues here.
I still have to insist that the first and second paragraphs contain language that cover the same topic, but provide different meanings and thus open to door to conflicting interpretations that could cause us trouble. We need to choose one or the other of the meanings and delete the other.
Here is an exegesis:
From the middle of paragraph 1: "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."
Paragraph 2:
"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."
My view is that the material from paragraph 1 must be deleted so as to not confuse people and undermine the message in paragraph 2.
As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1 invites parties to provide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the _plural_ form) that are being considered by the operational communities. To me, this seems to invite people to provide ongoing commentary on the ideas being considered by the operational communities as they develop a proposal or consider alternatives. That is not what we want. We want finished, agreed proposals.
Paragraph 2 is much clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages" affected parties to participate in the operational community process for the same of "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but it does not completely close the door to the receipt of finished alternative proposals where consensus is not possible.
I really think that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 are articulating separate models of response and we cannot allow the RFP to be released with such a critical ambiguity in it.
I also made a few minor changes, related to labeling IIA as Policy source and the second bullet point under IIB
I also responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness. My point is that various proposals might come up with different ways of excluding or separating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can't use the existing method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is simply asking them to explain the implications of their changes for existing policy arrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this issue, because it says almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B. So do we need it at all?
Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know what kind of a parallel universe the rest of you live in, but in the world I have become familiar with as a social scientist, there is no "testing" of legal and institutional accountability arrangements. We can project or estimate based on past experience, but that is all. If there are technical and operational changes called for by a proposal, yes, we can talk about pre-testing them in some kind of laboratory set up. But asking people to "test" what will happen if the NTIA is not there and some other accountability mechanism is, is asking for the impossible. So I have altered the language to deal with this.
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PM To: joseph alhadeff; 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 http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- 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: > > 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
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
Joe, Here I think we need to distinguish between actual proposals, which the RFP solicits and attempts to structure, and public comments on the proposal(s) that we put together. E.g., when you talk about a group addressing "a specific issue of interest such as accountability", it sounds to me like you are talking about people reacting to specific proposals that have actually been made. In that case, they can review the proposals and assess the adequacy with which they address, say, the accountability issue, and submit comments during the public comment period accordingly. What I fear is that your current language will encourage groups to inundate the ICG with comments like "We think accountability is important and ICANN needs more of it" BEFORE any proposals have actually been made - as if WE were the ones developing the proposal. We cannot do anything with such comments. Either people concoct and propose specific institutional, legal and operational changes that enhance accountability (in which case they are helping to develop a proposal) or they are just expressing opinions, which is only helpful to us if these opinions are about specific proposals that we have before us. Do you understand my concern here? --MM From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 3:41 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision Milton: I have been a strong proponent of making sure that proposals are developed only in the communities, but I am not convinced that those processes will necessarily be accessible beyond the normal members of and participants to that community. If there is a specific issue of interest, such as accountability, and there is a specific opinion on that I think we need to be open to those comments. We can try to make the timing of more general stakeholder comments coincide with the publication of the proposal for comments, but we need a section that better addresses how we are open to comments outside of the drafting communities and how and when they can participate in our process. Joe On 8/22/2014 3:19 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: Forwarding on behalf of Milton who is having list email issues ... On 8/22/14, 11:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu><mailto:mueller@syr.edu> wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision Alas, there are still some unresolved issues here. I still have to insist that the first and second paragraphs contain language that cover the same topic, but provide different meanings and thus open to door to conflicting interpretations that could cause us trouble. We need to choose one or the other of the meanings and delete the other. Here is an exegesis:
From the middle of paragraph 1:
"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." Paragraph 2: "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." My view is that the material from paragraph 1 must be deleted so as to not confuse people and undermine the message in paragraph 2. As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1 invites parties to provide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the _plural_ form) that are being considered by the operational communities. To me, this seems to invite people to provide ongoing commentary on the ideas being considered by the operational communities as they develop a proposal or consider alternatives. That is not what we want. We want finished, agreed proposals. Paragraph 2 is much clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages" affected parties to participate in the operational community process for the same of "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but it does not completely close the door to the receipt of finished alternative proposals where consensus is not possible. I really think that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 are articulating separate models of response and we cannot allow the RFP to be released with such a critical ambiguity in it. I also made a few minor changes, related to labeling IIA as Policy source and the second bullet point under IIB I also responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness. My point is that various proposals might come up with different ways of excluding or separating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can't use the existing method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is simply asking them to explain the implications of their changes for existing policy arrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this issue, because it says almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B. So do we need it at all? Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know what kind of a parallel universe the rest of you live in, but in the world I have become familiar with as a social scientist, there is no "testing" of legal and institutional accountability arrangements. We can project or estimate based on past experience, but that is all. If there are technical and operational changes called for by a proposal, yes, we can talk about pre-testing them in some kind of laboratory set up. But asking people to "test" what will happen if the NTIA is not there and some other accountability mechanism is, is asking for the impossible. So I have altered the language to deal with this. -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PM To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org<mailto: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><mailto: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 http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org<mailto: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><mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> wrote: Apologies for the delay, a new RFP revision is now online: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%<https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%25> 20v08.docx Paul On 19 Aug 2014, at 8:52 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net><mailto: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><mailto: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<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Milton: I agree in principle, but we are not talking enough about when or how they can comment after a proposal is submitted. I also think they can comment on the RFP as a document and suggest where they think the RFP is not asking the right questions. We can do that outside of the RFP, but this needs to be addressed in a clearer manner somewhere. Joe From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 4:07 PM To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision Joe, Here I think we need to distinguish between actual proposals, which the RFP solicits and attempts to structure, and public comments on the proposal(s) that we put together. E.g., when you talk about a group addressing "a specific issue of interest such as accountability", it sounds to me like you are talking about people reacting to specific proposals that have actually been made. In that case, they can review the proposals and assess the adequacy with which they address, say, the accountability issue, and submit comments during the public comment period accordingly. What I fear is that your current language will encourage groups to inundate the ICG with comments like "We think accountability is important and ICANN needs more of it" BEFORE any proposals have actually been made - as if WE were the ones developing the proposal. We cannot do anything with such comments. Either people concoct and propose specific institutional, legal and operational changes that enhance accountability (in which case they are helping to develop a proposal) or they are just expressing opinions, which is only helpful to us if these opinions are about specific proposals that we have before us. Do you understand my concern here? --MM From: HYPERLINK "mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org"internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 3:41 PM To: HYPERLINK "mailto:internal-cg@icann.org"internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision Milton: I have been a strong proponent of making sure that proposals are developed only in the communities, but I am not convinced that those processes will necessarily be accessible beyond the normal members of and participants to that community. If there is a specific issue of interest, such as accountability, and there is a specific opinion on that I think we need to be open to those comments. We can try to make the timing of more general stakeholder comments coincide with the publication of the proposal for comments, but we need a section that better addresses how we are open to comments outside of the drafting communities and how and when they can participate in our process. Joe On 8/22/2014 3:19 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: Forwarding on behalf of Milton who is having list email issues ... On 8/22/14, 11:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" HYPERLINK "mailto:mueller@syr.edu"<mueller@syr.edu> wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AM To: 'Alissa Cooper'; HYPERLINK "mailto:internal-cg@icann.org"internal-cg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision Alas, there are still some unresolved issues here. I still have to insist that the first and second paragraphs contain language that cover the same topic, but provide different meanings and thus open to door to conflicting interpretations that could cause us trouble. We need to choose one or the other of the meanings and delete the other. Here is an exegesis:
From the middle of paragraph 1:
"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." Paragraph 2: "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." My view is that the material from paragraph 1 must be deleted so as to not confuse people and undermine the message in paragraph 2. As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1 invites parties to provide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the _plural_ form) that are being considered by the operational communities. To me, this seems to invite people to provide ongoing commentary on the ideas being considered by the operational communities as they develop a proposal or consider alternatives. That is not what we want. We want finished, agreed proposals. Paragraph 2 is much clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages" affected parties to participate in the operational community process for the same of "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but it does not completely close the door to the receipt of finished alternative proposals where consensus is not possible. I really think that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 are articulating separate models of response and we cannot allow the RFP to be released with such a critical ambiguity in it. I also made a few minor changes, related to labeling IIA as Policy source and the second bullet point under IIB I also responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness. My point is that various proposals might come up with different ways of excluding or separating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can't use the existing method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is simply asking them to explain the implications of their changes for existing policy arrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this issue, because it says almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B. So do we need it at all? Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know what kind of a parallel universe the rest of you live in, but in the world I have become familiar with as a social scientist, there is no "testing" of legal and institutional accountability arrangements. We can project or estimate based on past experience, but that is all. If there are technical and operational changes called for by a proposal, yes, we can talk about pre-testing them in some kind of laboratory set up. But asking people to "test" what will happen if the NTIA is not there and some other accountability mechanism is, is asking for the impossible. So I have altered the language to deal with this. -----Original Message----- From: HYPERLINK "mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org"internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PM To: joseph alhadeff; HYPERLINK "mailto: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" HYPERLINK "mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com"<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 http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ -----Original Message----- From: HYPERLINK "mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org"internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- HYPERLINK "mailto:bounces@icann.org"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 HYPERLINK "mailto:pwilson@apnic.net"<pwilson@apnic.net> wrote: Apologies for the delay, a new RFP revision is now online: HYPERLINK "https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%25"https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP% 20v08.docx Paul On 19 Aug 2014, at 8:52 pm, Paul Wilson HYPERLINK "mailto:pwilson@apnic.net"<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 HYPERLINK "mailto:dg@apnic.net"<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 HYPERLINK "mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org"Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list HYPERLINK "mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org"Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list HYPERLINK "mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org"Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list HYPERLINK "mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org"Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Milton, all, Attached is a v12 that tries to clarify further what the ICG is requesting and how comments can be provided (Dropbox seems to be having an outage, I will upload later). I also carried forward some of Manal’s edits and edited Section IV based on Narelle’s email. There is one issue that Joe has raised that I don’t think needs to be explained in the RFP document itself but that we do need to decide about, which is whether we will solicit public comments about the contents of the RFP. Here is my assessment of that question: On the one hand, I feel like we have some independent authority here. If we ask for comments on the RFP and get comments back that say “half of the things you’re asking for are unnecessary,” I don’t think we should necessarily take them out. We were selected to deliver something credible to NTIA and I think it’s our decision as to what parts add up to credibility. On the other hand, someone might point out things that we missed. Of course any of the communities could and should provide additional information they think is appropriate in their proposal components — it’s not like we’re going to ignore some section of a proposal document we receive because we didn’t explicitly ask for it. We already ask for as much explanatory material as they want to give. So I’m not sure those kinds of comments will add a lot of value either. Personally, I’m in a situation where I’m receiving pointed emails from IETF folks who are wondering why the RFP hasn’t been published yet so they can align their work with the RFP. So I’m sensitive to getting something out the door ASAP. And I do not think people will be pleased if we publish the RFP on, say, next Thursday with a 1-week comment period that overlaps almost entirely with people’s travel to and participation in the IGF. So my opinion is that a specific public comment period on the contents of the RFP is not strictly necessary. But, if others think it is, perhaps we could publish the draft next week and circulate it to the communities, with the caveat that people can send comments about the RFP content itself to icg-forum@icann.org with a deadline in the second week of September, and we may choose to update the RFP based on those comments after that. I think the former is preferable though. Alissa On 8/22/14, 1:07 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Joe, Here I think we need to distinguish between actual proposals, which the RFP solicits and attempts to structure, and public comments on the proposal(s) that we put together.
E.g., when you talk about a group addressing “a specific issue of interest such as accountability”, it sounds to me like you are talking about people reacting to specific proposals that have actually been made. In that case, they can review the proposals and assess the adequacy with which they address, say, the accountability issue, and submit comments during the public comment period accordingly.
What I fear is that your current language will encourage groups to inundate the ICG with comments like “We think accountability is important and ICANN needs more of it” BEFORE any proposals have actually been made – as if WE were the ones developing the proposal. We cannot do anything with such comments. Either people concoct and propose specific institutional, legal and operational changes that enhance accountability (in which case they are helping to develop a proposal) or they are just expressing opinions, which is only helpful to us if these opinions are about specific proposals that we have before us.
Do you understand my concern here? --MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 3:41 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Milton:
I have been a strong proponent of making sure that proposals are developed only in the communities, but I am not convinced that those processes will necessarily be accessible beyond the normal members of and participants to that community. If there is a specific issue of interest, such as accountability, and there is a specific opinion on that I think we need to be open to those comments. We can try to make the timing of more general stakeholder comments coincide with the publication of the proposal for comments, but we need a section that better addresses how we are open to comments outside of the drafting communities and how and when they can participate in our process.
Joe On 8/22/2014 3:19 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Forwarding on behalf of Milton who is having list email issues ... On 8/22/14, 11:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> <mailto:mueller@syr.edu> wrote: -----Original Message-----From: Milton L MuellerSent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AMTo: 'Alissa Cooper'; internal-cg@icann.orgSubject: RE: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision Alas, there are still some unresolved issues here. I still have to insist that the first and second paragraphs containlanguage that cover the same topic, but provide different meanings andthus open to door to conflicting interpretations that could cause ustrouble. We need to choose one or the other of the meanings and deletethe other. Here is an exegesis:
From the middle of paragraph 1: "Other parties may provide comments to the ICG on particular aspects thatmay 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 directcomments received from other parties to the relevant operationalcommunities as appropriate." Paragraph 2: "During the development of their proposals, the operational communitiesare expected to consult and work with other affected parties; likewise,other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate incommunity processes, as the ICG is requiring proposals that haveconsensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups." My view is that the material from paragraph 1 must be deleted so as tonot confuse people and undermine the message in paragraph 2. As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1 invites parties toprovide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the _plural_ form) that arebeing considered by the operational communities. To me, this seems toinvite people to provide ongoing commentary on the ideas being consideredby the operational communities as they develop a proposal or consideralternatives. That is not what we want. We want finished, agreedproposals. Paragraph 2 is much clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages"affected parties to participate in the operational community process forthe same of "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but itdoes not completely close the door to the receipt of finished alternativeproposals where consensus is not possible. I really think that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 arearticulating separate models of response and we cannot allow the RFP tobe released with such a critical ambiguity in it. I also made a few minor changes, related to labeling IIA as Policy sourceand the second bullet point under IIB I also responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness. My point isthat various proposals might come up with different ways of excluding orseparating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can’t use theexisting method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is simply askingthem to explain the implications of their changes for existing policyarrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this issue, because itsays almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B. So do weneed it at all? Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know what kind of a paralleluniverse the rest of you live in, but in the world I have become familiarwith as a social scientist, there is no "testing" of legal andinstitutional accountability arrangements. We can project or estimatebased on past experience, but that is all. If there are technical andoperational changes called for by a proposal, yes, we can talk aboutpre-testing them in some kind of laboratory set up. But asking people to"test" what will happen if the NTIA is not there and some otheraccountability mechanism is, is asking for the impossible. So I havealtered the language to deal with this. -----Original Message-----From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org[mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org]On Behalf Of Alissa CooperSent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PMTo: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.orgSubject: 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 freeto comment to us about transparency, completeness, etc. I think thatis true as a general matter, but that is not what we are asking forspecifically in this RFP.That is what we will ask for — from anyone who cares to answer — afterwe have the proposal components submitted (by December :)).So I removed that text. I also found the new first paragraph quite confusing — it said we areissuing this RFP “for consideration” by all parties, which makes itsound like we’re asking people to comment on the RFP itself, ratherthan submit proposals. So, I did some editing on the first twoparagraphs, and also tried to work in the good suggestion from Manalthat we re-emphasize that we will direct comments to the operationalcommunities where we can. Here is how the first two paragraphs read now: "The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is seekingcomplete formal responses to this Request for Proposals (RFP) from the“operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operationalor service relationships with IANA; namely names, numbers, protocolparameters). Other interested and affected parties are stronglyencouraged to provide their inputs through open processes run by theseoperational communities. Other parties may provide comments to theICG on particular aspects that may be covered by proposals that may beof significant interest to them, for review by the ICG as time andresources permit. The ICG will direct comments received from otherparties to the relevant operational communities as appropriate. During the development of their proposals, the operational communitiesare expected to consult and work with other affected parties;likewise, other affected parties are strongly encouraged toparticipate in community processes, as the ICG is requiring proposalsthat have consensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups.” In section 0, I edited “change” to “address” in "Identify whichcategory 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 needelaboration, of just one sentence each, because they are not clear ontheir face: ·Continuity of service requirements·Risks·Service integration aspects For example, “Risks” seems so vague that each community could write anovel about them and not be complete. What are we really looking forhere? Thanks,Alissa On 8/19/14, 8:50 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>wrote: I have uploaded v9(jha) with a few suggested edits to further clarifythe operational vs impacted communities comment process... Also aquestion of whether testing should be limited to Section III - arethose the only changes contemplated that could impact stability andfunctionality? I think we are getting pretty close to a final draft... JoeOn 8/19/2014 11:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:Paul:Done. It is uploaded as docx as version 09. Also proposed someminor clarity changes to the preamble and added a comment respondingto Martin's nervousness. We can't have Martin being nervous. Milton L MuellerLaura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse UniversitySchool of Information Studieshttp://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ -----Original Message-----From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul WilsonSent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:05 AMTo: ICGSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision Milton, thanks for your comments on the "section 0" part. thisadds some needed clarity about the whole orientation of this
process. If you can, please make further edits to the version 8 documentlinked below. Paul. On 19 Aug 2014, at 9:30 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> wrote: Apologies for the delay, a new RFP revision is now online:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP% <https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%25>20v0 8.docx Paul On 19 Aug 2014, at 8:52 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> wrote: Dear all, I am in the process of reconciling all inputs on the latest RFPdocument,
and will have a clean version available in Dropbox shortly.My intention is to go run this document sequentially duringtonight's
meeting, seeking ICG members' views and suggestions.Thanks, Paul.
________________________________________________________________________Pa ul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> <mailto:dg@apnic.net>http://www.apnic.net +61 7
38583100 See you at APNIC 38!http://conference.apnic.net/38
_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
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
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
Martin The wording as currently amended goes like this: • If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, identify which ones are affected and explain in what way. This is fine with me. It does not "encourage" any particular response or attitude, it simply recognizes that there could be effects on policy processes that need to be taken into account. So many changes have been made that I cannot tell which ones are yours, so if the above represents your preferred wording I am fine with it. The other section that affected your nerves was this: "If your community’s proposal carries any implications for the interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A, those implications should be described here." Again, this wording is fine with me. It recognizes that there could be implications for the interface between IANA and existing policy arrangements, and asks in a neutral way to describe those implications. I also agree with your change of "may" to "should" regarding references to the IANA contract Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
-----Original Message----- From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:36 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Alissa Cooper; 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
dEAR Alissa, Dear All, Please kindly advise when we stop revising and revising. There is no point to to to 100% perfection. We are about good Please publish final draft accepting all changes for last minutes refinements TKS Kavouss 2014-08-25 14:56 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
Martin The wording as currently amended goes like this:
• If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, identify which ones are affected and explain in what way.
This is fine with me. It does not "encourage" any particular response or attitude, it simply recognizes that there could be effects on policy processes that need to be taken into account. So many changes have been made that I cannot tell which ones are yours, so if the above represents your preferred wording I am fine with it.
The other section that affected your nerves was this:
"If your community’s proposal carries any implications for the interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A, those implications should be described here."
Again, this wording is fine with me. It recognizes that there could be implications for the interface between IANA and existing policy arrangements, and asks in a neutral way to describe those implications.
I also agree with your change of "may" to "should" regarding references to the IANA contract
Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
-----Original Message----- From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:36 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Alissa Cooper; 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
Thank you kind sir: that addresses my main concerns. Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Aug 2014, at 13:57, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Martin The wording as currently amended goes like this:
• If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, identify which ones are affected and explain in what way.
This is fine with me. It does not "encourage" any particular response or attitude, it simply recognizes that there could be effects on policy processes that need to be taken into account. So many changes have been made that I cannot tell which ones are yours, so if the above represents your preferred wording I am fine with it.
The other section that affected your nerves was this:
"If your community’s proposal carries any implications for the interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A, those implications should be described here."
Again, this wording is fine with me. It recognizes that there could be implications for the interface between IANA and existing policy arrangements, and asks in a neutral way to describe those implications.
I also agree with your change of "may" to "should" regarding references to the IANA contract
Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
-----Original Message----- From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:36 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Alissa Cooper; 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
Hi all, Speaking as the liaison from the IANA functions operator, please note that many places in the existing text reference ³IANA² 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 ³IANA². 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 community¹s 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
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
I’ve compiled all revisions and added a few more (hopefully) minor edits - v14 on the dropbox, and attached. Will try to join call; if I can’t I wish you all success in agreeing on a final release version. 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 26 Aug 2014, at 1:23 pm, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
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
Hi Paul, all, first, thanks to everyone who put so much time and thought into this. While I have been unable to comment, I have now read the thread and the proposal and think it hits all the key points and is quite clear. Talk to you all very soon, Lynn On Aug 26, 2014, at 12:27 AM, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> wrote:
I’ve compiled all revisions and added a few more (hopefully) minor edits - v14 on the dropbox, and attached.
Will try to join call; if I can’t I wish you all success in agreeing on a final release version.
Paul.
<IANA Transition RFP v14.docx>
________________________________________________________________________ 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 26 Aug 2014, at 1:23 pm, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
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
No group has a service relationship with "IANA". All the service relationships are with ICANN as the IANA functions operator. This is only because NTIA currently awards the IANA contract to ICANN. The NTIA and its IANA contract are going away. Ergo, we have to treat the IANA as a separate thing that is not inherently bound to ICANN. Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Milton, Your example is built on a couple of false premises ; the first being - ICANN is only the IANA functions operator because of a contract with NTIA ; and the second is- the NTIA transition is to replace the IANA functions operator. ICANN is the IANA functions operator today based on long-standing agreements with the IETF, the NRO as well as the USG. In 1998 ICANN was created as a home for the IANA functions and there was no contract with the USG at that time. In 2000, the IETF signed an MOU with ICANN to perform the technical work of the IANA. This agreement is recorded in RFC 2860. In 2004, the NRO signed an agreement with ICANN to ³require specific actions or outcomes on part of IANA.² As for what NTIA announced in March 2014, it was not about replacing the IANA functions operator, it was to replace NTIA¹s role administering changes to the root zone as well as acting as ³the historic steward of the DNS². In the words of the NTIA announcement, it asks for ³a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet¹s domain name system (DNS)." Regards, -- Elise From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 at 5:42 AM To: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org>, "internal-cg@icann.org" <internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
No group has a service relationship with ³IANA². All the service relationships are with ICANN as the IANA functions operator.
This is only because NTIA currently awards the IANA contract to ICANN. The NTIA and its IANA contract are going away. Ergo, we have to treat the IANA as a separate thing that is not inherently bound to ICANN.
Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ <http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/>
Thank you Elise for this clarification. I have read the RFP document severally and each time I do, I get confused as to the expected outcome from communities and interested stakeholders Vs the NTIA announcement of its stewardship replacement, call it 'regulator' if you like. Your input is very help to the re-drafting of the RFP to give ICG the needed proposal of replacement of the aspect of oversight function being performed currently by the NTIA. Mary Uduma Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN -----Original Message----- From: Elise Gerich <elise.gerich@icann.org> Sender: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:55:56 To: Milton L Mueller<mueller@syr.edu>; internal-cg@icann.org<internal-cg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I oppose having a public comment period on the RFP. The RFP is not the kind of document for which general public comments make sense. I think we can use the less formal network model of interaction instead; i.e., individual ICG members share the penultimate draft with the people they represent and get some reaction over the next few days.
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 5:44 PM To: Milton L Mueller; joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Milton, all,
Attached is a v12 that tries to clarify further what the ICG is requesting and how comments can be provided (Dropbox seems to be having an outage, I will upload later). I also carried forward some of Manal’s edits and edited Section IV based on Narelle’s email.
There is one issue that Joe has raised that I don’t think needs to be explained in the RFP document itself but that we do need to decide about, which is whether we will solicit public comments about the contents of the RFP. Here is my assessment of that question:
On the one hand, I feel like we have some independent authority here. If we ask for comments on the RFP and get comments back that say “half of the things you’re asking for are unnecessary,” I don’t think we should necessarily take them out. We were selected to deliver something credible to NTIA and I think it’s our decision as to what parts add up to credibility.
On the other hand, someone might point out things that we missed. Of course any of the communities could and should provide additional information they think is appropriate in their proposal components — it’s not like we’re going to ignore some section of a proposal document we receive because we didn’t explicitly ask for it. We already ask for as much explanatory material as they want to give. So I’m not sure those kinds of comments will add a lot of value either.
Personally, I’m in a situation where I’m receiving pointed emails from IETF folks who are wondering why the RFP hasn’t been published yet so they can align their work with the RFP. So I’m sensitive to getting something out the door ASAP. And I do not think people will be pleased if we publish the RFP on, say, next Thursday with a 1-week comment period that overlaps almost entirely with people’s travel to and participation in the IGF.
So my opinion is that a specific public comment period on the contents of the RFP is not strictly necessary. But, if others think it is, perhaps we could publish the draft next week and circulate it to the communities, with the caveat that people can send comments about the RFP content itself to icg-forum@icann.org with a deadline in the second week of September, and we may choose to update the RFP based on those comments after that. I think the former is preferable though.
Alissa
On 8/22/14, 1:07 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Joe, Here I think we need to distinguish between actual proposals, which the RFP solicits and attempts to structure, and public comments on the proposal(s) that we put together.
E.g., when you talk about a group addressing “a specific issue of interest such as accountability”, it sounds to me like you are talking about people reacting to specific proposals that have actually been made. In that case, they can review the proposals and assess the adequacy with which they address, say, the accountability issue, and submit comments during the public comment period accordingly.
What I fear is that your current language will encourage groups to inundate the ICG with comments like “We think accountability is important and ICANN needs more of it” BEFORE any proposals have actually been made – as if WE were the ones developing the proposal. We cannot do anything with such comments. Either people concoct and propose specific institutional, legal and operational changes that enhance accountability (in which case they are helping to develop a proposal) or they are just expressing opinions, which is only helpful to us if these opinions are about specific proposals that we have before us.
Do you understand my concern here? --MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 3:41 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Milton:
I have been a strong proponent of making sure that proposals are developed only in the communities, but I am not convinced that those processes will necessarily be accessible beyond the normal members of and participants to that community. If there is a specific issue of interest, such as accountability, and there is a specific opinion on that I think we need to be open to those comments. We can try to make the timing of more general stakeholder comments coincide with the publication of the proposal for comments, but we need a section that better addresses how we are open to comments outside of the drafting communities and how and when they can participate in our process.
Joe On 8/22/2014 3:19 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Forwarding on behalf of Milton who is having list email issues ... On 8/22/14, 11:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> <mailto:mueller@syr.edu> wrote: -----Original Message-----From: Milton L MuellerSent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AMTo: 'Alissa Cooper'; internal-cg@icann.orgSubject: RE: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision Alas, there are still some unresolved issues here. I still have to insist that the first and second paragraphs containlanguage that cover the same topic, but provide different meanings andthus open to door to conflicting interpretations that could cause ustrouble. We need to choose one or the other of the meanings and deletethe other. Here is an exegesis:
From the middle of paragraph 1: "Other parties may provide comments to the ICG on particular aspects thatmay 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 directcomments received from other parties to the relevant operationalcommunities as appropriate." Paragraph 2: "During the development of their proposals, the operational communitiesare expected to consult and work with other affected parties; likewise,other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate incommunity processes, as the ICG is requiring proposals that haveconsensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups." My view is that the material from paragraph 1 must be deleted so as tonot confuse people and undermine the message in paragraph 2. As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1 invites parties toprovide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the _plural_ form) that arebeing considered by the operational communities. To me, this seems toinvite people to provide ongoing commentary on the ideas being consideredby the operational communities as they develop a proposal or consideralternatives. That is not what we want. We want finished, agreedproposals. Paragraph 2 is much clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages"affected parties to participate in the operational community process forthe same of "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but itdoes not completely close the door to the receipt of finished alternativeproposals where consensus is not possible. I really think that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 arearticulating separate models of response and we cannot allow the RFP tobe released with such a critical ambiguity in it. I also made a few minor changes, related to labeling IIA as Policy sourceand the second bullet point under IIB I also responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness. My point isthat various proposals might come up with different ways of excluding orseparating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can’t use theexisting method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is simply askingthem to explain the implications of their changes for existing policyarrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this issue, because itsays almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B. So do weneed it at all? Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know what kind of a paralleluniverse the rest of you live in, but in the world I have become familiarwith as a social scientist, there is no "testing" of legal andinstitutional accountability arrangements. We can project or estimatebased on past experience, but that is all. If there are technical andoperational changes called for by a proposal, yes, we can talk aboutpre-testing them in some kind of laboratory set up. But asking people to"test" what will happen if the NTIA is not there and some otheraccountability mechanism is, is asking for the impossible. So I havealtered the language to deal with this. -----Original Message-----From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org[mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org]On Behalf Of Alissa CooperSent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PMTo: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.orgSubject: 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 freeto comment to us about transparency, completeness, etc. I think thatis true as a general matter, but that is not what we are asking forspecifically in this RFP.That is what we will ask for — from anyone who cares to answer — afterwe have the proposal components submitted (by December :)).So I removed that text. I also found the new first paragraph quite confusing — it said we areissuing this RFP “for consideration” by all parties, which makes itsound like we’re asking people to comment on the RFP itself, ratherthan submit proposals. So, I did some editing on the first twoparagraphs, and also tried to work in the good suggestion from Manalthat we re-emphasize that we will direct comments to the operationalcommunities where we can. Here is how the first two paragraphs read now: "The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is seekingcomplete formal responses to this Request for Proposals (RFP) from the“operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operationalor service relationships with IANA; namely names, numbers, protocolparameters). Other interested and affected parties are stronglyencouraged to provide their inputs through open processes run by theseoperational communities. Other parties may provide comments to theICG on particular aspects that may be covered by proposals that may beof significant interest to them, for review by the ICG as time andresources permit. The ICG will direct comments received from otherparties to the relevant operational communities as appropriate. During the development of their proposals, the operational communitiesare expected to consult and work with other affected parties;likewise, other affected parties are strongly encouraged toparticipate in community processes, as the ICG is requiring proposalsthat have consensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups.” In section 0, I edited “change” to “address” in "Identify whichcategory 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 needelaboration, of just one sentence each, because they are not clear ontheir face: ·Continuity of service requirements·Risks·Service integration aspects For example, “Risks” seems so vague that each community could write anovel about them and not be complete. What are we really looking forhere? Thanks,Alissa On 8/19/14, 8:50 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>wrote: I have uploaded v9(jha) with a few suggested edits to further clarifythe operational vs impacted communities comment process... Also aquestion of whether testing should be limited to Section III - arethose the only changes contemplated that could impact stability andfunctionality? I think we are getting pretty close to a final draft... JoeOn 8/19/2014 11:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:Paul:Done. It is uploaded as docx as version 09. Also proposed someminor clarity changes to the preamble and added a comment respondingto Martin's nervousness. We can't have Martin being nervous. Milton L MuellerLaura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse UniversitySchool of Information Studieshttp://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ -----Original Message-----From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul WilsonSent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:05 AMTo: ICGSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision Milton, thanks for your comments on the "section 0" part. thisadds some needed clarity about the whole orientation of this
process. If you can, please make further edits to the version 8 documentlinked below. Paul. On 19 Aug 2014, at 9:30 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> wrote: Apologies for the delay, a new RFP revision is now online:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP% <https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%2 5>20v0 8.docx Paul On 19 Aug 2014, at 8:52 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> wrote: Dear all, I am in the process of reconciling all inputs on the latest RFPdocument,
and will have a clean version available in Dropbox shortly.My intention is to go run this document sequentially duringtonight's
meeting, seeking ICG members' views and suggestions.Thanks, Paul.
________________________________________________________________
_Pa ul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> <mailto:dg@apnic.net>http://www.apnic.net +61 7
38583100 See you at APNIC 38!http://conference.apnic.net/38
_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal -cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal -cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal -cg
_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal -cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
That's an acceptable comproimse. On 8/23/2014 11:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I oppose having a public comment period on the RFP. The RFP is not the kind of document for which general public comments make sense. I think we can use the less formal network model of interaction instead; i.e., individual ICG members share the penultimate draft with the people they represent and get some reaction over the next few days.
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 5:44 PM To: Milton L Mueller; joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Milton, all,
Attached is a v12 that tries to clarify further what the ICG is requesting and how comments can be provided (Dropbox seems to be having an outage, I will upload later). I also carried forward some of Manal’s edits and edited Section IV based on Narelle’s email.
There is one issue that Joe has raised that I don’t think needs to be explained in the RFP document itself but that we do need to decide about, which is whether we will solicit public comments about the contents of the RFP. Here is my assessment of that question:
On the one hand, I feel like we have some independent authority here. If we ask for comments on the RFP and get comments back that say “half of the things you’re asking for are unnecessary,” I don’t think we should necessarily take them out. We were selected to deliver something credible to NTIA and I think it’s our decision as to what parts add up to credibility.
On the other hand, someone might point out things that we missed. Of course any of the communities could and should provide additional information they think is appropriate in their proposal components — it’s not like we’re going to ignore some section of a proposal document we receive because we didn’t explicitly ask for it. We already ask for as much explanatory material as they want to give. So I’m not sure those kinds of comments will add a lot of value either.
Personally, I’m in a situation where I’m receiving pointed emails from IETF folks who are wondering why the RFP hasn’t been published yet so they can align their work with the RFP. So I’m sensitive to getting something out the door ASAP. And I do not think people will be pleased if we publish the RFP on, say, next Thursday with a 1-week comment period that overlaps almost entirely with people’s travel to and participation in the IGF.
So my opinion is that a specific public comment period on the contents of the RFP is not strictly necessary. But, if others think it is, perhaps we could publish the draft next week and circulate it to the communities, with the caveat that people can send comments about the RFP content itself to icg-forum@icann.org with a deadline in the second week of September, and we may choose to update the RFP based on those comments after that. I think the former is preferable though.
Alissa
On 8/22/14, 1:07 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Joe, Here I think we need to distinguish between actual proposals, which the RFP solicits and attempts to structure, and public comments on the proposal(s) that we put together.
E.g., when you talk about a group addressing “a specific issue of interest such as accountability”, it sounds to me like you are talking about people reacting to specific proposals that have actually been made. In that case, they can review the proposals and assess the adequacy with which they address, say, the accountability issue, and submit comments during the public comment period accordingly.
What I fear is that your current language will encourage groups to inundate the ICG with comments like “We think accountability is important and ICANN needs more of it” BEFORE any proposals have actually been made – as if WE were the ones developing the proposal. We cannot do anything with such comments. Either people concoct and propose specific institutional, legal and operational changes that enhance accountability (in which case they are helping to develop a proposal) or they are just expressing opinions, which is only helpful to us if these opinions are about specific proposals that we have before us.
Do you understand my concern here? --MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 3:41 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Milton:
I have been a strong proponent of making sure that proposals are developed only in the communities, but I am not convinced that those processes will necessarily be accessible beyond the normal members of and participants to that community. If there is a specific issue of interest, such as accountability, and there is a specific opinion on that I think we need to be open to those comments. We can try to make the timing of more general stakeholder comments coincide with the publication of the proposal for comments, but we need a section that better addresses how we are open to comments outside of the drafting communities and how and when they can participate in our process.
Joe On 8/22/2014 3:19 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Forwarding on behalf of Milton who is having list email issues ... On 8/22/14, 11:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> <mailto:mueller@syr.edu> wrote: -----Original Message-----From: Milton L MuellerSent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AMTo: 'Alissa Cooper'; internal-cg@icann.orgSubject: RE: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision Alas, there are still some unresolved issues here. I still have to insist that the first and second paragraphs containlanguage that cover the same topic, but provide different meanings andthus open to door to conflicting interpretations that could cause ustrouble. We need to choose one or the other of the meanings and deletethe other. Here is an exegesis:
From the middle of paragraph 1: "Other parties may provide comments to the ICG on particular aspects thatmay 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 directcomments received from other parties to the relevant operationalcommunities as appropriate." Paragraph 2: "During the development of their proposals, the operational communitiesare expected to consult and work with other affected parties; likewise,other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate incommunity processes, as the ICG is requiring proposals that haveconsensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups." My view is that the material from paragraph 1 must be deleted so as tonot confuse people and undermine the message in paragraph 2. As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1 invites parties toprovide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the _plural_ form) that arebeing considered by the operational communities. To me, this seems toinvite people to provide ongoing commentary on the ideas being consideredby the operational communities as they develop a proposal or consideralternatives. That is not what we want. We want finished, agreedproposals. Paragraph 2 is much clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages"affected parties to participate in the operational community process forthe same of "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but itdoes not completely close the door to the receipt of finished alternativeproposals where consensus is not possible. I really think that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 arearticulating separate models of response and we cannot allow the RFP tobe released with such a critical ambiguity in it. I also made a few minor changes, related to labeling IIA as Policy sourceand the second bullet point under IIB I also responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness. My point isthat various proposals might come up with different ways of excluding orseparating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can’t use theexisting method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is simply askingthem to explain the implications of their changes for existing policyarrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this issue, because itsays almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B. So do weneed it at all? Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know what kind of a paralleluniverse the rest of you live in, but in the world I have become familiarwith as a social scientist, there is no "testing" of legal andinstitutional accountability arrangements. We can project or estimatebased on past experience, but that is all. If there are technical andoperational changes called for by a proposal, yes, we can talk aboutpre-testing them in some kind of laboratory set up. But asking people to"test" what will happen if the NTIA is not there and some otheraccountability mechanism is, is asking for the impossible. So I havealtered the language to deal with this. -----Original Message-----From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org[mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org]On Behalf Of Alissa CooperSent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PMTo: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.orgSubject: 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 freeto comment to us about transparency, completeness, etc. I think thatis true as a general matter, but that is not what we are asking forspecifically in this RFP.That is what we will ask for — from anyone who cares to answer — afterwe have the proposal components submitted (by December :)).So I removed that text. I also found the new first paragraph quite confusing — it said we areissuing this RFP “for consideration” by all parties, which makes itsound like we’re asking people to comment on the RFP itself, ratherthan submit proposals. So, I did some editing on the first twoparagraphs, and also tried to work in the good suggestion from Manalthat we re-emphasize that we will direct comments to the operationalcommunities where we can. Here is how the first two paragraphs read now: "The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is seekingcomplete formal responses to this Request for Proposals (RFP) from the“operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operationalor service relationships with IANA; namely names, numbers, protocolparameters). Other interested and affected parties are stronglyencouraged to provide their inputs through open processes run by theseoperational communities. Other parties may provide comments to theICG on particular aspects that may be covered by proposals that may beof significant interest to them, for review by the ICG as time andresources permit. The ICG will direct comments received from otherparties to the relevant operational communities as appropriate. During the development of their proposals, the operational communitiesare expected to consult and work with other affected parties;likewise, other affected parties are strongly encouraged toparticipate in community processes, as the ICG is requiring proposalsthat have consensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups.” In section 0, I edited “change” to “address” in "Identify whichcategory 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 needelaboration, of just one sentence each, because they are not clear ontheir face: ·Continuity of service requirements·Risks·Service integration aspects For example, “Risks” seems so vague that each community could write anovel about them and not be complete. What are we really looking forhere? Thanks,Alissa On 8/19/14, 8:50 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>wrote: I have uploaded v9(jha) with a few suggested edits to further clarifythe operational vs impacted communities comment process... Also aquestion of whether testing should be limited to Section III - arethose the only changes contemplated that could impact stability andfunctionality? I think we are getting pretty close to a final draft... JoeOn 8/19/2014 11:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:Paul:Done. It is uploaded as docx as version 09. Also proposed someminor clarity changes to the preamble and added a comment respondingto Martin's nervousness. We can't have Martin being nervous. Milton L MuellerLaura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse UniversitySchool of Information Studieshttp://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ -----Original Message-----From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul WilsonSent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:05 AMTo: ICGSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision Milton, thanks for your comments on the "section 0" part. thisadds some needed clarity about the whole orientation of this
process. If you can, please make further edits to the version 8 documentlinked below. Paul. On 19 Aug 2014, at 9:30 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> wrote: Apologies for the delay, a new RFP revision is now online:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP% <https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%2 5>20v0 8.docx Paul On 19 Aug 2014, at 8:52 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> wrote: Dear all, I am in the process of reconciling all inputs on the latest RFPdocument,
and will have a clean version available in Dropbox shortly.My intention is to go run this document sequentially duringtonight's
meeting, seeking ICG members' views and suggestions.Thanks, Paul.
________________________________________________________________
_Pa ul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> <mailto:dg@apnic.net>http://www.apnic.net +61 7
38583100 See you at APNIC 38!http://conference.apnic.net/38
_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal -cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal -cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal -cg
_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal -cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I'm a bit confused with respect to input from 'interested parties' other than the 'Operational Communities', after Dec. 31st .. Are we going to allow comments on the individual proposals submitted or integrate them first then call for comments on the unified version? Or is it still to be decided? Apologies if this has already been discussed and I overlooked the decision .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 9:22 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision That's an acceptable comproimse. On 8/23/2014 11:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I oppose having a public comment period on the RFP. The RFP is not the kind of document for which general public comments make sense. I think we can use the less formal network model of interaction instead; i.e., individual ICG members share the penultimate draft with the people they represent and get some reaction over the next few days.
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 5:44 PM To: Milton L Mueller; joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Milton, all,
Attached is a v12 that tries to clarify further what the ICG is requesting and how comments can be provided (Dropbox seems to be having an outage, I will upload later). I also carried forward some of Manal’s edits and edited Section IV based on Narelle’s email.
There is one issue that Joe has raised that I don’t think needs to be explained in the RFP document itself but that we do need to decide about, which is whether we will solicit public comments about the contents of the RFP. Here is my assessment of that question:
On the one hand, I feel like we have some independent authority here. If we ask for comments on the RFP and get comments back that say “half of the things you’re asking for are unnecessary,” I don’t think we should necessarily take them out. We were selected to deliver something credible to NTIA and I think it’s our decision as to what parts add up to credibility.
On the other hand, someone might point out things that we missed. Of course any of the communities could and should provide additional information they think is appropriate in their proposal components — it’s not like we’re going to ignore some section of a proposal document we receive because we didn’t explicitly ask for it. We already ask for as much explanatory material as they want to give. So I’m not sure those kinds of comments will add a lot of value either.
Personally, I’m in a situation where I’m receiving pointed emails from IETF folks who are wondering why the RFP hasn’t been published yet so they can align their work with the RFP. So I’m sensitive to getting something out the door ASAP. And I do not think people will be pleased if we publish the RFP on, say, next Thursday with a 1-week comment period that overlaps almost entirely with people’s travel to and participation in the IGF.
So my opinion is that a specific public comment period on the contents of the RFP is not strictly necessary. But, if others think it is, perhaps we could publish the draft next week and circulate it to the communities, with the caveat that people can send comments about the RFP content itself to icg-forum@icann.org with a deadline in the second week of September, and we may choose to update the RFP based on those comments after that. I think the former is preferable though.
Alissa
On 8/22/14, 1:07 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Joe, Here I think we need to distinguish between actual proposals, which the RFP solicits and attempts to structure, and public comments on the proposal(s) that we put together.
E.g., when you talk about a group addressing “a specific issue of interest such as accountability”, it sounds to me like you are talking about people reacting to specific proposals that have actually been made. In that case, they can review the proposals and assess the adequacy with which they address, say, the accountability issue, and submit comments during the public comment period accordingly.
What I fear is that your current language will encourage groups to inundate the ICG with comments like “We think accountability is important and ICANN needs more of it” BEFORE any proposals have actually been made – as if WE were the ones developing the proposal. We cannot do anything with such comments. Either people concoct and propose specific institutional, legal and operational changes that enhance accountability (in which case they are helping to develop a proposal) or they are just expressing opinions, which is only helpful to us if these opinions are about specific proposals that we have before us.
Do you understand my concern here? --MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 3:41 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Milton:
I have been a strong proponent of making sure that proposals are developed only in the communities, but I am not convinced that those processes will necessarily be accessible beyond the normal members of and participants to that community. If there is a specific issue of interest, such as accountability, and there is a specific opinion on that I think we need to be open to those comments. We can try to make the timing of more general stakeholder comments coincide with the publication of the proposal for comments, but we need a section that better addresses how we are open to comments outside of the drafting communities and how and when they can participate in our process.
Joe On 8/22/2014 3:19 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Forwarding on behalf of Milton who is having list email issues ... On 8/22/14, 11:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> <mailto:mueller@syr.edu> wrote: -----Original Message-----From: Milton L MuellerSent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AMTo: 'Alissa Cooper'; internal-cg@icann.orgSubject: RE: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision Alas, there are still some unresolved issues here. I still have to insist that the first and second paragraphs containlanguage that cover the same topic, but provide different meanings andthus open to door to conflicting interpretations that could cause ustrouble. We need to choose one or the other of the meanings and deletethe other. Here is an exegesis:
From the middle of paragraph 1: "Other parties may provide comments to the ICG on particular aspects thatmay 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 directcomments received from other parties to the relevant operationalcommunities as appropriate." Paragraph 2: "During the development of their proposals, the operational communitiesare expected to consult and work with other affected parties; likewise,other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate incommunity processes, as the ICG is requiring proposals that haveconsensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups." My view is that the material from paragraph 1 must be deleted so as tonot confuse people and undermine the message in paragraph 2. As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1 invites parties toprovide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the _plural_ form) that arebeing considered by the operational communities. To me, this seems toinvite people to provide ongoing commentary on the ideas being consideredby the operational communities as they develop a proposal or consideralternatives. That is not what we want. We want finished, agreedproposals. Paragraph 2 is much clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages"affected parties to participate in the operational community process forthe same of "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but itdoes not completely close the door to the receipt of finished alternativeproposals where consensus is not possible. I really think that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 arearticulating separate models of response and we cannot allow the RFP tobe released with such a critical ambiguity in it. I also made a few minor changes, related to labeling IIA as Policy sourceand the second bullet point under IIB I also responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness. My point isthat various proposals might come up with different ways of excluding orseparating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can’t use theexisting method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is simply askingthem to explain the implications of their changes for existing policyarrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this issue, because itsays almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B. So do weneed it at all? Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know what kind of a paralleluniverse the rest of you live in, but in the world I have become familiarwith as a social scientist, there is no "testing" of legal andinstitutional accountability arrangements. We can project or estimatebased on past experience, but that is all. If there are technical andoperational changes called for by a proposal, yes, we can talk aboutpre-testing them in some kind of laboratory set up. But asking people to"test" what will happen if the NTIA is not there and some otheraccountability mechanism is, is asking for the impossible. So I havealtered the language to deal with this. -----Original Message-----From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org[mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa CooperSent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PMTo: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.orgSubject: 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 freeto comment to us about transparency, completeness, etc. I think thatis true as a general matter, but that is not what we are asking forspecifically in this RFP.That is what we will ask for — from anyone who cares to answer — afterwe have the proposal components submitted (by December :)).So I removed that text. I also found the new first paragraph quite confusing — it said we areissuing this RFP “for consideration” by all parties, which makes itsound like we’re asking people to comment on the RFP itself, ratherthan submit proposals. So, I did some editing on the first twoparagraphs, and also tried to work in the good suggestion from Manalthat we re-emphasize that we will direct comments to the operationalcommunities where we can. Here is how the first two paragraphs read now: "The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is seekingcomplete formal responses to this Request for Proposals (RFP) from the“operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operationalor service relationships with IANA; namely names, numbers, protocolparameters). Other interested and affected parties are stronglyencouraged to provide their inputs through open processes run by theseoperational communities. Other parties may provide comments to theICG on particular aspects that may be covered by proposals that may beof significant interest to them, for review by the ICG as time andresources permit. The ICG will direct comments received from otherparties to the relevant operational communities as appropriate. During the development of their proposals, the operational communitiesare expected to consult and work with other affected parties;likewise, other affected parties are strongly encouraged toparticipate in community processes, as the ICG is requiring proposalsthat have consensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups.” In section 0, I edited “change” to “address” in "Identify whichcategory 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 needelaboration, of just one sentence each, because they are not clear ontheir face: ·Continuity of service requirements·Risks·Service integration aspects For example, “Risks” seems so vague that each community could write anovel about them and not be complete. What are we really looking forhere? Thanks,Alissa On 8/19/14, 8:50 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>wrote: I have uploaded v9(jha) with a few suggested edits to further clarifythe operational vs impacted communities comment process... Also aquestion of whether testing should be limited to Section III - arethose the only changes contemplated that could impact stability andfunctionality? I think we are getting pretty close to a final draft... JoeOn 8/19/2014 11:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:Paul:Done. It is uploaded as docx as version 09. Also proposed someminor clarity changes to the preamble and added a comment respondingto Martin's nervousness. We can't have Martin being nervous. Milton L MuellerLaura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse UniversitySchool of Information Studieshttp://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ -----Original Message-----From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul WilsonSent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:05 AMTo: ICGSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision Milton, thanks for your comments on the "section 0" part. thisadds some needed clarity about the whole orientation of this
process. If you can, please make further edits to the version 8 documentlinked below. Paul. On 19 Aug 2014, at 9:30 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> wrote: Apologies for the delay, a new RFP revision is now online:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP% <https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%2 5>20v0 8.docx Paul On 19 Aug 2014, at 8:52 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> wrote: Dear all, I am in the process of reconciling all inputs on the latest RFPdocument,
and will have a clean version available in Dropbox shortly.My intention is to go run this document sequentially duringtonight's
meeting, seeking ICG members' views and suggestions.Thanks, Paul.
________________________________________________________________
_Pa ul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> <mailto:dg@apnic.net>http://www.apnic.net +61 7
38583100 See you at APNIC 38!http://conference.apnic.net/38
_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter nal -cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter nal -cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter nal -cg
_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter nal -cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://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
Hi Manal, I think this is still to be determined. My inclination would be to integrate the proposals first, but this is not a decision we have to make yet. Alissa On 8/24/14, 11:41 AM, "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
I'm a bit confused with respect to input from 'interested parties' other than the 'Operational Communities', after Dec. 31st .. Are we going to allow comments on the individual proposals submitted or integrate them first then call for comments on the unified version? Or is it still to be decided? Apologies if this has already been discussed and I overlooked the decision .. Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 9:22 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
That's an acceptable comproimse. On 8/23/2014 11:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I oppose having a public comment period on the RFP. The RFP is not the kind of document for which general public comments make sense. I think we can use the less formal network model of interaction instead; i.e., individual ICG members share the penultimate draft with the people they represent and get some reaction over the next few days.
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 5:44 PM To: Milton L Mueller; joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Milton, all,
Attached is a v12 that tries to clarify further what the ICG is requesting and how comments can be provided (Dropbox seems to be having an outage, I will upload later). I also carried forward some of Manal’s edits and edited Section IV based on Narelle’s email.
There is one issue that Joe has raised that I don’t think needs to be explained in the RFP document itself but that we do need to decide about, which is whether we will solicit public comments about the contents of the RFP. Here is my assessment of that question:
On the one hand, I feel like we have some independent authority here. If we ask for comments on the RFP and get comments back that say “half of the things you’re asking for are unnecessary,” I don’t think we should necessarily take them out. We were selected to deliver something credible to NTIA and I think it’s our decision as to what parts add up to credibility.
On the other hand, someone might point out things that we missed. Of course any of the communities could and should provide additional information they think is appropriate in their proposal components — it’s not like we’re going to ignore some section of a proposal document we receive because we didn’t explicitly ask for it. We already ask for as much explanatory material as they want to give. So I’m not sure those kinds of comments will add a lot of value either.
Personally, I’m in a situation where I’m receiving pointed emails from IETF folks who are wondering why the RFP hasn’t been published yet so they can align their work with the RFP. So I’m sensitive to getting something out the door ASAP. And I do not think people will be pleased if we publish the RFP on, say, next Thursday with a 1-week comment period that overlaps almost entirely with people’s travel to and participation in the IGF.
So my opinion is that a specific public comment period on the contents of the RFP is not strictly necessary. But, if others think it is, perhaps we could publish the draft next week and circulate it to the communities, with the caveat that people can send comments about the RFP content itself to icg-forum@icann.org with a deadline in the second week of September, and we may choose to update the RFP based on those comments after that. I think the former is preferable though.
Alissa
On 8/22/14, 1:07 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Joe, Here I think we need to distinguish between actual proposals, which the RFP solicits and attempts to structure, and public comments on the proposal(s) that we put together.
E.g., when you talk about a group addressing “a specific issue of interest such as accountability”, it sounds to me like you are talking about people reacting to specific proposals that have actually been made. In that case, they can review the proposals and assess the adequacy with which they address, say, the accountability issue, and submit comments during the public comment period accordingly.
What I fear is that your current language will encourage groups to inundate the ICG with comments like “We think accountability is important and ICANN needs more of it” BEFORE any proposals have actually been made – as if WE were the ones developing the proposal. We cannot do anything with such comments. Either people concoct and propose specific institutional, legal and operational changes that enhance accountability (in which case they are helping to develop a proposal) or they are just expressing opinions, which is only helpful to us if these opinions are about specific proposals that we have before us.
Do you understand my concern here? --MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 3:41 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Milton:
I have been a strong proponent of making sure that proposals are developed only in the communities, but I am not convinced that those processes will necessarily be accessible beyond the normal members of and participants to that community. If there is a specific issue of interest, such as accountability, and there is a specific opinion on that I think we need to be open to those comments. We can try to make the timing of more general stakeholder comments coincide with the publication of the proposal for comments, but we need a section that better addresses how we are open to comments outside of the drafting communities and how and when they can participate in our process.
Joe On 8/22/2014 3:19 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Forwarding on behalf of Milton who is having list email issues ... On 8/22/14, 11:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> <mailto:mueller@syr.edu> wrote: -----Original Message-----From: Milton L MuellerSent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AMTo: 'Alissa Cooper'; internal-cg@icann.orgSubject: RE: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision Alas, there are still some unresolved issues here. I still have to insist that the first and second paragraphs containlanguage that cover the same topic, but provide different meanings andthus open to door to conflicting interpretations that could cause ustrouble. We need to choose one or the other of the meanings and deletethe other. Here is an exegesis:
From the middle of paragraph 1: "Other parties may provide comments to the ICG on particular aspects thatmay 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 directcomments received from other parties to the relevant operationalcommunities as appropriate." Paragraph 2: "During the development of their proposals, the operational communitiesare expected to consult and work with other affected parties; likewise,other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate incommunity processes, as the ICG is requiring proposals that haveconsensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups." My view is that the material from paragraph 1 must be deleted so as tonot confuse people and undermine the message in paragraph 2. As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1 invites parties toprovide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the _plural_ form) that arebeing considered by the operational communities. To me, this seems toinvite people to provide ongoing commentary on the ideas being consideredby the operational communities as they develop a proposal or consideralternatives. That is not what we want. We want finished, agreedproposals. Paragraph 2 is much clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages"affected parties to participate in the operational community process forthe same of "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but itdoes not completely close the door to the receipt of finished alternativeproposals where consensus is not possible. I really think that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 arearticulating separate models of response and we cannot allow the RFP tobe released with such a critical ambiguity in it. I also made a few minor changes, related to labeling IIA as Policy sourceand the second bullet point under IIB I also responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness. My point isthat various proposals might come up with different ways of excluding orseparating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can’t use theexisting method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is simply askingthem to explain the implications of their changes for existing policyarrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this issue, because itsays almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B. So do weneed it at all? Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know what kind of a paralleluniverse the rest of you live in, but in the world I have become familiarwith as a social scientist, there is no "testing" of legal andinstitutional accountability arrangements. We can project or estimatebased on past experience, but that is all. If there are technical andoperational changes called for by a proposal, yes, we can talk aboutpre-testing them in some kind of laboratory set up. But asking people to"test" what will happen if the NTIA is not there and some otheraccountability mechanism is, is asking for the impossible. So I havealtered the language to deal with this. -----Original Message-----From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org[mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa CooperSent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PMTo: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.orgSubject: 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 freeto comment to us about transparency, completeness, etc. I think thatis true as a general matter, but that is not what we are asking forspecifically in this RFP.That is what we will ask for — from anyone who cares to answer — afterwe have the proposal components submitted (by December :)).So I removed that text. I also found the new first paragraph quite confusing — it said we areissuing this RFP “for consideration” by all parties, which makes itsound like we’re asking people to comment on the RFP itself, ratherthan submit proposals. So, I did some editing on the first twoparagraphs, and also tried to work in the good suggestion from Manalthat we re-emphasize that we will direct comments to the operationalcommunities where we can. Here is how the first two paragraphs read now: "The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is seekingcomplete formal responses to this Request for Proposals (RFP) from the“operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operationalor service relationships with IANA; namely names, numbers, protocolparameters). Other interested and affected parties are stronglyencouraged to provide their inputs through open processes run by theseoperational communities. Other parties may provide comments to theICG on particular aspects that may be covered by proposals that may beof significant interest to them, for review by the ICG as time andresources permit. The ICG will direct comments received from otherparties to the relevant operational communities as appropriate. During the development of their proposals, the operational communitiesare expected to consult and work with other affected parties;likewise, other affected parties are strongly encouraged toparticipate in community processes, as the ICG is requiring proposalsthat have consensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups.” In section 0, I edited “change” to “address” in "Identify whichcategory 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 needelaboration, of just one sentence each, because they are not clear ontheir face: ·Continuity of service requirements·Risks·Service integration aspects For example, “Risks” seems so vague that each community could write anovel about them and not be complete. What are we really looking forhere? Thanks,Alissa On 8/19/14, 8:50 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>wrote: I have uploaded v9(jha) with a few suggested edits to further clarifythe operational vs impacted communities comment process... Also aquestion of whether testing should be limited to Section III - arethose the only changes contemplated that could impact stability andfunctionality? I think we are getting pretty close to a final draft... JoeOn 8/19/2014 11:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:Paul:Done. It is uploaded as docx as version 09. Also proposed someminor clarity changes to the preamble and added a comment respondingto Martin's nervousness. We can't have Martin being nervous. Milton L MuellerLaura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse UniversitySchool of Information Studieshttp://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ -----Original Message-----From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul WilsonSent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:05 AMTo: ICGSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision Milton, thanks for your comments on the "section 0" part. thisadds some needed clarity about the whole orientation of this
process. If you can, please make further edits to the version 8 documentlinked below. Paul. On 19 Aug 2014, at 9:30 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> wrote: Apologies for the delay, a new RFP revision is now online:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP% <https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%2 5>20v0 8.docx Paul On 19 Aug 2014, at 8:52 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> wrote: Dear all, I am in the process of reconciling all inputs on the latest RFPdocument,
and will have a clean version available in Dropbox shortly.My intention is to go run this document sequentially duringtonight's
meeting, seeking ICG members' views and suggestions.Thanks, Paul.
________________________________________________________________
_Pa ul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> <mailto:dg@apnic.net>http://www.apnic.net +61 7
38583100 See you at APNIC 38!http://conference.apnic.net/38
_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter nal -cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter nal -cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter nal -cg
_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter nal -cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Many thanks Alissa for the clarification .. Kind Regards --Manal Sent from my iPhone On Aug 25, 2014, at 9:19 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Hi Manal,
I think this is still to be determined. My inclination would be to integrate the proposals first, but this is not a decision we have to make yet.
Alissa
On 8/24/14, 11:41 AM, "Manal Ismail" <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
I'm a bit confused with respect to input from 'interested parties' other than the 'Operational Communities', after Dec. 31st .. Are we going to allow comments on the individual proposals submitted or integrate them first then call for comments on the unified version? Or is it still to be decided? Apologies if this has already been discussed and I overlooked the decision .. Kind Regards --Manal
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 9:22 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
That's an acceptable comproimse. On 8/23/2014 11:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I oppose having a public comment period on the RFP. The RFP is not the kind of document for which general public comments make sense. I think we can use the less formal network model of interaction instead; i.e., individual ICG members share the penultimate draft with the people they represent and get some reaction over the next few days.
-----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 5:44 PM To: Milton L Mueller; joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Milton, all,
Attached is a v12 that tries to clarify further what the ICG is requesting and how comments can be provided (Dropbox seems to be having an outage, I will upload later). I also carried forward some of Manal’s edits and edited Section IV based on Narelle’s email.
There is one issue that Joe has raised that I don’t think needs to be explained in the RFP document itself but that we do need to decide about, which is whether we will solicit public comments about the contents of the RFP. Here is my assessment of that question:
On the one hand, I feel like we have some independent authority here. If we ask for comments on the RFP and get comments back that say “half of the things you’re asking for are unnecessary,” I don’t think we should necessarily take them out. We were selected to deliver something credible to NTIA and I think it’s our decision as to what parts add up to credibility.
On the other hand, someone might point out things that we missed. Of course any of the communities could and should provide additional information they think is appropriate in their proposal components — it’s not like we’re going to ignore some section of a proposal document we receive because we didn’t explicitly ask for it. We already ask for as much explanatory material as they want to give. So I’m not sure those kinds of comments will add a lot of value either.
Personally, I’m in a situation where I’m receiving pointed emails from IETF folks who are wondering why the RFP hasn’t been published yet so they can align their work with the RFP. So I’m sensitive to getting something out the door ASAP. And I do not think people will be pleased if we publish the RFP on, say, next Thursday with a 1-week comment period that overlaps almost entirely with people’s travel to and participation in the IGF.
So my opinion is that a specific public comment period on the contents of the RFP is not strictly necessary. But, if others think it is, perhaps we could publish the draft next week and circulate it to the communities, with the caveat that people can send comments about the RFP content itself to icg-forum@icann.org with a deadline in the second week of September, and we may choose to update the RFP based on those comments after that. I think the former is preferable though.
Alissa
On 8/22/14, 1:07 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Joe, Here I think we need to distinguish between actual proposals, which the RFP solicits and attempts to structure, and public comments on the proposal(s) that we put together.
E.g., when you talk about a group addressing “a specific issue of interest such as accountability”, it sounds to me like you are talking about people reacting to specific proposals that have actually been made. In that case, they can review the proposals and assess the adequacy with which they address, say, the accountability issue, and submit comments during the public comment period accordingly.
What I fear is that your current language will encourage groups to inundate the ICG with comments like “We think accountability is important and ICANN needs more of it” BEFORE any proposals have actually been made – as if WE were the ones developing the proposal. We cannot do anything with such comments. Either people concoct and propose specific institutional, legal and operational changes that enhance accountability (in which case they are helping to develop a proposal) or they are just expressing opinions, which is only helpful to us if these opinions are about specific proposals that we have before us.
Do you understand my concern here? --MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 3:41 PM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Milton:
I have been a strong proponent of making sure that proposals are developed only in the communities, but I am not convinced that those processes will necessarily be accessible beyond the normal members of and participants to that community. If there is a specific issue of interest, such as accountability, and there is a specific opinion on that I think we need to be open to those comments. We can try to make the timing of more general stakeholder comments coincide with the publication of the proposal for comments, but we need a section that better addresses how we are open to comments outside of the drafting communities and how and when they can participate in our process.
Joe On 8/22/2014 3:19 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Forwarding on behalf of Milton who is having list email issues ... On 8/22/14, 11:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> <mailto:mueller@syr.edu> wrote: -----Original Message-----From: Milton L MuellerSent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AMTo: 'Alissa Cooper'; internal-cg@icann.orgSubject: RE: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision Alas, there are still some unresolved issues here. I still have to insist that the first and second paragraphs containlanguage that cover the same topic, but provide different meanings andthus open to door to conflicting interpretations that could cause ustrouble. We need to choose one or the other of the meanings and deletethe other. Here is an exegesis:
From the middle of paragraph 1: "Other parties may provide comments to the ICG on particular aspects thatmay 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 directcomments received from other parties to the relevant operationalcommunities as appropriate." Paragraph 2: "During the development of their proposals, the operational communitiesare expected to consult and work with other affected parties; likewise,other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate incommunity processes, as the ICG is requiring proposals that haveconsensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups." My view is that the material from paragraph 1 must be deleted so as tonot confuse people and undermine the message in paragraph 2. As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1 invites parties toprovide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the _plural_ form) that arebeing considered by the operational communities. To me, this seems toinvite people to provide ongoing commentary on the ideas being consideredby the operational communities as they develop a proposal or consideralternatives. That is not what we want. We want finished, agreedproposals. Paragraph 2 is much clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages"affected parties to participate in the operational community process forthe same of "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but itdoes not completely close the door to the receipt of finished alternativeproposals where consensus is not possible. I really think that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 arearticulating separate models of response and we cannot allow the RFP tobe released with such a critical ambiguity in it. I also made a few minor changes, related to labeling IIA as Policy sourceand the second bullet point under IIB I also responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness. My point isthat various proposals might come up with different ways of excluding orseparating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can’t use theexisting method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is simply askingthem to explain the implications of their changes for existing policyarrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this issue, because itsays almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B. So do weneed it at all? Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know what kind of a paralleluniverse the rest of you live in, but in the world I have become familiarwith as a social scientist, there is no "testing" of legal andinstitutional accountability arrangements. We can project or estimatebased on past experience, but that is all. If there are technical andoperational changes called for by a proposal, yes, we can talk aboutpre-testing them in some kind of laboratory set up. But asking people to"test" what will happen if the NTIA is not there and some otheraccountability mechanism is, is asking for the impossible. So I havealtered the language to deal with this. -----Original Message-----From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org[mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa CooperSent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PMTo: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg@icann.orgSubject: 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 freeto comment to us about transparency, completeness, etc. I think thatis true as a general matter, but that is not what we are asking forspecifically in this RFP.That is what we will ask for — from anyone who cares to answer — afterwe have the proposal components submitted (by December :)).So I removed that text. I also found the new first paragraph quite confusing — it said we areissuing this RFP “for consideration” by all parties, which makes itsound like we’re asking people to comment on the RFP itself, ratherthan submit proposals. So, I did some editing on the first twoparagraphs, and also tried to work in the good suggestion from Manalthat we re-emphasize that we will direct comments to the operationalcommunities where we can. Here is how the first two paragraphs read now: "The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is seekingcomplete formal responses to this Request for Proposals (RFP) from the“operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operationalor service relationships with IANA; namely names, numbers, protocolparameters). Other interested and affected parties are stronglyencouraged to provide their inputs through open processes run by theseoperational communities. Other parties may provide comments to theICG on particular aspects that may be covered by proposals that may beof significant interest to them, for review by the ICG as time andresources permit. The ICG will direct comments received from otherparties to the relevant operational communities as appropriate. During the development of their proposals, the operational communitiesare expected to consult and work with other affected parties;likewise, other affected parties are strongly encouraged toparticipate in community processes, as the ICG is requiring proposalsthat have consensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups.” In section 0, I edited “change” to “address” in "Identify whichcategory 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 needelaboration, of just one sentence each, because they are not clear ontheir face: ·Continuity of service requirements·Risks·Service integration aspects For example, “Risks” seems so vague that each community could write anovel about them and not be complete. What are we really looking forhere? Thanks,Alissa On 8/19/14, 8:50 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>wrote: I have uploaded v9(jha) with a few suggested edits to further clarifythe operational vs impacted communities comment process... Also aquestion of whether testing should be limited to Section III - arethose the only changes contemplated that could impact stability andfunctionality? I think we are getting pretty close to a final draft... JoeOn 8/19/2014 11:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:Paul:Done. It is uploaded as docx as version 09. Also proposed someminor clarity changes to the preamble and added a comment respondingto Martin's nervousness. We can't have Martin being nervous. Milton L MuellerLaura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse UniversitySchool of Information Studieshttp://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ -----Original Message-----From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul WilsonSent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:05 AMTo: ICGSubject: Re: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision Milton, thanks for your comments on the "section 0" part. thisadds some needed clarity about the whole orientation of this
process. If you can, please make further edits to the version 8 documentlinked below. Paul. On 19 Aug 2014, at 9:30 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> wrote: Apologies for the delay, a new RFP revision is now online:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP% <https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%2 5>20v0 8.docx Paul On 19 Aug 2014, at 8:52 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson@apnic.net> <mailto:pwilson@apnic.net> wrote: Dear all, I am in the process of reconciling all inputs on the latest RFPdocument,
and will have a clean version available in Dropbox shortly.My intention is to go run this document sequentially duringtonight's
meeting, seeking ICG members' views and suggestions.Thanks, Paul.
________________________________________________________________
_Pa ul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> <mailto:dg@apnic.net>http://www.apnic.net +61 7
38583100 See you at APNIC 38!http://conference.apnic.net/38
_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter nal -cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter nal -cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter nal -cg
_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter nal -cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.orghttps://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 _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I think Alissa’s version is good enough to be shipped.
I oppose having a public comment period on the RFP. The RFP is not the kind of document for which general public comments make sense. I think we can use the less formal network model of interaction instead; i.e., individual ICG members share the penultimate draft with the people they represent and get some reaction over the next few days.
I agree. Also, ultimately, the RFP is a request for the communities to send us proposals on how THEY think they should do things in the future. If we get the RFP somehow wrong (for instance by forgetting to request for some crucial piece of information), I’m hoping the communities are direct enough to tell us that! Also, I have no doubt our understanding of the question we are asking is increasing as time goes by and the communities do their work. If we realise that we need to ask for some additional information, for instance, we can revise the RFP just as we can revise the charter and other documents in the ICG. Jari
participants (14)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Elise Gerich -
Jari Arkko -
Joe Alhadeff -
joseph alhadeff
-
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lynn St.Amour -
Manal Ismail -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller -
mnuduma＠yahoo.com -
Patrik Fältström -
Paul Wilson -
Wu Kuo-Wei