I want to be on it. Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
So here's a shot at compromise text... On 8/26/2014 8:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I want to be on it.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I like the general thrust of this proposal, thank you Joseph. But I’d prefer text that puts this in more of a parallel operation than sequential. Jari - thinking about the timeline… Jari
How can we assemble a unified proposal before we get the community proposals? Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? On 8/26/2014 9:16 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I like the general thrust of this proposal, thank you Joseph.
But I’d prefer text that puts this in more of a parallel operation than sequential.
Jari - thinking about the timeline…
Jari
Joe I think this is too complicated and too big a deviation from our earlier approach. I still think the solution to JJ's concerns is to be found in the notion of the operational communities as convenors of proposal development processes that must include other interested parties. I think all we need to do is alter the following sentence in the way I suggest below: Original sentence: The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) seeks complete formal responses to this RFP from the "operational communities" of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters). Proposed modification: The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests "operational communities" of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP. This is a simpler change, does not alter the basic assumptions of our charter, but also makes it clear that the operational communities are responsible for convening processes that, according to other language that is already in the RFP, Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties. During the development of their proposals, the operational communities are requested to consult and work with other affected parties. Likewise, in order to help the ICG maintain its light coordination role, all other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate in community processes. ... Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in developing their responses.... Etc. Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:01 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup So here's a shot at compromise text... On 8/26/2014 8:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: I want to be on it. Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Milton: I still think we need to address the ability of stakeholders to directly comment to us in the development or on the unitary proposal. That is factual. I'm also don't think that my language changes the charter as only operational communities submit proposals... joe On 8/26/2014 9:16 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Joe
I think this is too complicated and too big a deviation from our earlier approach.
I still think the solution to JJ's concerns is to be found in the notion of the operational communities as convenors of proposal development processes that must include other interested parties.
I think all we need to do is alter the following sentence in the way I suggest below:
Original sentence:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) seeks /complete formal responses/ to this RFP from the "operational communities" of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters).
Proposed modification:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests "operational communities" of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop /complete formal responses/ to this RFP.
This is a simpler change, does not alter the basic assumptions of our charter, but also makes it clear that the operational communities are responsible for convening processes that, according to other language that is already in the RFP,
Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties. During the development of their proposals, the operational communities are requested to consult and work with other affected parties. Likewise, in order to help the ICG maintain its light coordination role, all other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate in community processes.
...
Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in developing their responses.... Etc.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
*From:*internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *joseph alhadeff *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:01 AM *To:* internal-cg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
So here's a shot at compromise text...
On 8/26/2014 8:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I want to be on it.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org>
From: joseph alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com] Milton: I still think we need to address the ability of stakeholders to directly comment to us in the development or on the unitary proposal. That is factual. I'm also don't think that my language changes the charter as only operational communities submit proposals... But I have learned that my community (NCSG) doesn't support the idea that only operational communities submit proposals and others only provide "input" to operational communities. It sounds like the operationals can ignore that input at will. And although that is not what anyone in ICG intended, that is how the current RFP reads to some people. We need to avoid that. What my group, and I think ALAC as well, want to see is an operational community-led proposal development process (such as the GNSO/CCNSO Cross Community Working Group) that they can participate in as equal status members. In other words, although the process is being convened by GNSO and CCNSO who are operational communities, the user groups (CSG, NCSG, At Large) are part of that proposal development process and have basically the same status as the operators in that process In some ways this is really a non-issue, because the names CCWG is already chartered in a way that is satisfactory to the non-operational communities in the names orbit. The CCWG is what will develop the proposal. And of course the names arena is the one that most people are probably thinking about when they fret about input. I think the only other issue that is unresolved is whether we accept public comment on individual operational community proposals before we package them into a proposed final proposal. I think we should. But I don't think that issue needs to be resolved in the RFP. Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP.
I do like your approach Milton even better.
Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how?
I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner that we have done so far.
I'm also don't think that my language changes the charter as only operational communities submit proposals…
Yes, excellent. And this is true of both of the proposals.
I still think we need to address the ability of stakeholders to directly comment to us in the development or on the unitary proposal. That is factual.
The charter does require the ICG to perform both assessment of non-operational community input and have a public comment period so that we can determine broad support. As a result, I think it is fine to add something about broad stakeholder input to the RFP. I’m though inclined to go with Milton’s minimal approach to text changes. Jari
I'm fine with Milton's language, though I want to make sure that while operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus... The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time frames to work under. I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying exactly when and how that consultation proceeds. Joe On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP. I do like your approach Milton even better.
Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner that we have done so far.
I'm also don't think that my language changes the charter as only operational communities submit proposals… Yes, excellent. And this is true of both of the proposals.
I still think we need to address the ability of stakeholders to directly comment to us in the development or on the unitary proposal. That is factual. The charter does require the ICG to perform both assessment of non-operational community input and have a public comment period so that we can determine broad support. As a result, I think it is fine to add something about broad stakeholder input to the RFP. I’m though inclined to go with Milton’s minimal approach to text changes.
Jari
On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm fine with Milton's language,
Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
though I want to make sure that while operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus...
To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last sentence of the RFP explains.
The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time frames to work under.
The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties."
I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.
This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter: "The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica l comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.” I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help. Alissa
Joe
On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP. I do like your approach Milton even better.
Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner that we have done so far.
I'm also don't think that my language changes the charter as only operational communities submit proposals… Yes, excellent. And this is true of both of the proposals.
I still think we need to address the ability of stakeholders to directly comment to us in the development or on the unitary proposal. That is factual. The charter does require the ICG to perform both assessment of non-operational community input and have a public comment period so that we can determine broad support. As a result, I think it is fine to add something about broad stakeholder input to the RFP. I’m though inclined to go with Milton’s minimal approach to text changes.
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-----Original Message-----
To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last sentence of the RFP explains.
Well, I don't think we want proposals that don't have broad support.
The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties."
"broad support among all types of stakeholders" instread of "broad consensus of support" would possibly address this concern, as well as not be as awkward linguistically. ;-) However, I think I reflect the concerns of many civil society and user groups when I say that we do not want to let up on the pressre on the operational communities to negotiate and find agreement among all the stakeholder groups. So be careful with this language. Milton L Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org
It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled? It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits. thanks. Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38 On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm fine with Milton's language,
Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
though I want to make sure that while operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus...
To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last sentence of the RFP explains.
The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time frames to work under.
The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties."
I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.
This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
"The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica l comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.”
I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
Alissa
Joe
On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP. I do like your approach Milton even better.
Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner
If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a friendly amendment. Thanks. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled? It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits. thanks. Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38 On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm fine with Milton's language,
Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
though I want to make sure that while operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus...
To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last sentence of the RFP explains.
The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time frames to work under.
The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties."
I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.
This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
"The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica l comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.”
I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
Alissa
Joe
On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP. I do like your approach Milton even better.
Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Colleagues, following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a friendly amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the draft RFP: "Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational communities, this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities." With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of the draft RFP. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a friendly amendment. Thanks. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled? It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits. thanks. Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38 On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm fine with Milton's language,
Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
though I want to make sure that while operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus...
To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last sentence of the RFP explains.
The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time frames to work under.
The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties."
I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.
This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
"The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica l comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.”
I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
Alissa
Joe
On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP. I do like your approach Milton even better.
Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear Allé, All suggestions are friedly .There is no unfriedly suggestions We should look into the merit of proposal and not on the source. I fully agree with the proposal KAVOUSS 2014-08-27 22:48 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net>:
Dear Colleagues,
following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a friendly amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the draft RFP:
"Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational communities, this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of the draft RFP.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a friendly amendment. Thanks.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" < mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled?
It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits.
thanks.
Paul.
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm fine with Milton's language,
Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
though I want to make sure that while operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus...
To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last sentence of the RFP explains.
The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time frames to work under.
The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties."
I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.
This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
"The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica l comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.”
I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
Alissa
Joe
On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete
formal
responses to this RFP. I do like your approach Milton even better.
Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear all, In line with the comments I made during our second ICG call on August 19, I also fully support Jean-Jacques proposal. Best regards, Jandyr Jandyr Santos Jr Head of the Information Society Division Department of Scientific and Technological Themes Ministry of External Relations Tel: 55-61-2030-8469/8472 Fax: 55-61-2030-6613 -----Mensagem original----- De: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Kavouss Arasteh Enviada em: quarta-feira, 27 de agosto de 2014 18:32 Para: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: Coordination Group Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup Dear Allé, All suggestions are friedly .There is no unfriedly suggestions We should look into the merit of proposal and not on the source. I fully agree with the proposal KAVOUSS 2014-08-27 22:48 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net>: Dear Colleagues, following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a friendly amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the draft RFP: "Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational communities, this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities." With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of the draft RFP. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a friendly amendment. Thanks. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled? It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits. thanks. Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100 <tel:%2B61%207%203858%203100> See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38 On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote: > On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote: > >> I'm fine with Milton's language, > > Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me. > >> though I want to make sure that while >> operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious >> review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive >> at consensus... > > To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each > process, but that each proposal document "An > assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, > including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the > last sentence of the RFP explains. > >> The operational community's knowledge of functional >> requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions >> related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance >> of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and >> accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require >> processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to >> endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time >> frames to work under. > > The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad > consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is > accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps > “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to > produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all > interested parties." > >> >> I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and >> stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying >> exactly when and how that consultation proceeds. > > This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter: > > "The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal > that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put > this > proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for > reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica > l > comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether > modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the > coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.” > > I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the > stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point > readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help. > > Alissa > >> >> Joe >> >> On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: >>>> The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests >>>> “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational >>>> or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, >>>> or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal >>>> responses to this RFP. >>> I do like your approach Milton even better. >>> >>>> Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? >>> I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various >>> stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact >>> involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I >>> understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate >>> phase 2 stage in a more formal manner _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Jean-Jacques: I understand the purpose of the proposal, but I have a concern of a potential unintended side effect. A stakeholder proposal input that comes to us related to one of the operational community proposals bypasses the dialog and consensus process of the relevant operational community. That would then put us in a place of vetting a proposal element that had not been through the same process as the others. Would it be appropriate to suggest that while stakeholder comments/input on proposal elements related to operational community proposals may be submitted to the ICG for consideration, they must also be submitted as an input to the relevant operational community proposal process? I can understand that stakeholders not naturally part of the operational communities may wish to have this as a way of making sure that their input is properly considered, but it should also be part of the consensus development in the appropriate operational community process. While the ICG could refer the comment into the appropriate operational community process, it would lose the potency of the arguments and context that stakeholder input author could offer in support of the positions as part of the community consensus process. Finally there had been a concern that such an open ended call could strain our limited bandwidth and that it may be hard for us to factor individual input against consensus processes. While this is only a potential concern, it is serious if it arises. Do you have any thoughts on the above? Joe On 8/27/2014 4:48 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a friendly amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the draft RFP:
"Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational communities, this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of the draft RFP.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a friendly amendment. Thanks.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled?
It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits.
thanks.
Paul.
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm fine with Milton's language, Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
though I want to make sure that while operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus... To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last sentence of the RFP explains.
The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time frames to work under. The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties."
I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying exactly when and how that consultation proceeds. This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
"The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica l comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.”
I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
Alissa
Joe
On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP. I do like your approach Milton even better.
Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hello Joe, thanks for your comment. IMHO it introduces a level of intricacy somewhat removed from the straightforward principle contained in the NTIA statement about the necessary involvement of all stakeholders, of which the user community is an essential element. Our friendly amendment is not intended to turn any individual's input, ipso facto, into a "proposal". It simply maintains the ability for communities to contribute to the future Stewardship Transition plan. And for the ALAC, that means factoring in the requirements and concerns of the user community. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> Envoyé: Jeudi 28 Août 2014 01:10:19 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup Jean-Jacques: I understand the purpose of the proposal, but I have a concern of a potential unintended side effect. A stakeholder proposal input that comes to us related to one of the operational community proposals bypasses the dialog and consensus process of the relevant operational community. That would then put us in a place of vetting a proposal element that had not been through the same process as the others. Would it be appropriate to suggest that while stakeholder comments/input on proposal elements related to operational community proposals may be submitted to the ICG for consideration, they must also be submitted as an input to the relevant operational community proposal process? I can understand that stakeholders not naturally part of the operational communities may wish to have this as a way of making sure that their input is properly considered, but it should also be part of the consensus development in the appropriate operational community process. While the ICG could refer the comment into the appropriate operational community process, it would lose the potency of the arguments and context that stakeholder input author could offer in support of the positions as part of the community consensus process. Finally there had been a concern that such an open ended call could strain our limited bandwidth and that it may be hard for us to factor individual input against consensus processes. While this is only a potential concern, it is serious if it arises. Do you have any thoughts on the above? Joe On 8/27/2014 4:48 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a friendly amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the draft RFP:
"Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational communities, this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of the draft RFP.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a friendly amendment. Thanks.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled?
It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits.
thanks.
Paul.
________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm fine with Milton's language, Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
though I want to make sure that while operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus... To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last sentence of the RFP explains.
The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time frames to work under. The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties."
I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying exactly when and how that consultation proceeds. This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
"The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica l comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.”
I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
Alissa
Joe
On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP. I do like your approach Milton even better.
Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
As expressed on the call and in my own proposed modification, I do not oppose the sentiment behind JJ's modification. However, in some ways this wording undercuts the more liberal approach to input by saying that we "do not expect full proposals from non-operational communities." To my mind, this creates an unwanted dichotomy between the operational community proposal development process and "everyone else," when what we want is for op and non-operational communities to work together on a proposal. Thus I could support this change only if the first clause is sawed off, to read: "This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities." Addressing Joe's concerns about our capacity, etc. I am not worried. While I strongly agree with him that we do not want to encourage groups to go off into their own silos and come up with a proposal in isolation (and I can think of two groups that have a tendency to do that), I think the RFP already puts major emphasis on widespread support for proposals. If anyone "goes silo" they should be prepared for the fact that their ideas will not be part of the final package unless they can show that they have support outside their silo and made a serious effort to gain support from the other parts of the community making a proposal. Also, I do not think we are going to get dozens of actual proposals.
-----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs@dyalog.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:48 PM To: Paul Wilson Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller; joseph alhadeff Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
Dear Colleagues,
following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a friendly amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the draft RFP:
"Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational communities, this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of the draft RFP.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a friendly amendment. Thanks.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled?
It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits.
thanks.
Paul.
_________________________________________________________________ _______ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm fine with Milton's language,
Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
though I want to make sure that while operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus...
To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last sentence of the RFP explains.
The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time frames to work under.
The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties."
I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.
This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
"The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica l comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.”
I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
Alissa
Joe
On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP. I do like your approach Milton even better.
Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I agree with Milton's latest proposed modification. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Jeudi 28 Août 2014 15:28:12 Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup As expressed on the call and in my own proposed modification, I do not oppose the sentiment behind JJ's modification. However, in some ways this wording undercuts the more liberal approach to input by saying that we "do not expect full proposals from non-operational communities." To my mind, this creates an unwanted dichotomy between the operational community proposal development process and "everyone else," when what we want is for op and non-operational communities to work together on a proposal. Thus I could support this change only if the first clause is sawed off, to read: "This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities." Addressing Joe's concerns about our capacity, etc. I am not worried. While I strongly agree with him that we do not want to encourage groups to go off into their own silos and come up with a proposal in isolation (and I can think of two groups that have a tendency to do that), I think the RFP already puts major emphasis on widespread support for proposals. If anyone "goes silo" they should be prepared for the fact that their ideas will not be part of the final package unless they can show that they have support outside their silo and made a serious effort to gain support from the other parts of the community making a proposal. Also, I do not think we are going to get dozens of actual proposals.
-----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs@dyalog.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:48 PM To: Paul Wilson Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller; joseph alhadeff Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
Dear Colleagues,
following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a friendly amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the draft RFP:
"Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational communities, this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of the draft RFP.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a friendly amendment. Thanks.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled?
It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits.
thanks.
Paul.
_________________________________________________________________ _______ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm fine with Milton's language,
Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
though I want to make sure that while operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus...
To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last sentence of the RFP explains.
The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time frames to work under.
The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties."
I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.
This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
"The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica l comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.”
I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
Alissa
Joe
On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP. I do like your approach Milton even better.
Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Me too. Alissa On 8/28/14, 7:26 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
I agree with Milton's latest proposed modification. Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Jeudi 28 Août 2014 15:28:12 Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
As expressed on the call and in my own proposed modification, I do not oppose the sentiment behind JJ's modification. However, in some ways this wording undercuts the more liberal approach to input by saying that we "do not expect full proposals from non-operational communities." To my mind, this creates an unwanted dichotomy between the operational community proposal development process and "everyone else," when what we want is for op and non-operational communities to work together on a proposal.
Thus I could support this change only if the first clause is sawed off, to read:
"This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
Addressing Joe's concerns about our capacity, etc. I am not worried. While I strongly agree with him that we do not want to encourage groups to go off into their own silos and come up with a proposal in isolation (and I can think of two groups that have a tendency to do that), I think the RFP already puts major emphasis on widespread support for proposals. If anyone "goes silo" they should be prepared for the fact that their ideas will not be part of the final package unless they can show that they have support outside their silo and made a serious effort to gain support from the other parts of the community making a proposal. Also, I do not think we are going to get dozens of actual proposals.
-----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs@dyalog.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:48 PM To: Paul Wilson Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller; joseph alhadeff Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
Dear Colleagues,
following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a friendly amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the draft RFP:
"Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational communities, this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of the draft RFP.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a friendly amendment. Thanks.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled?
It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits.
thanks.
Paul.
_________________________________________________________________ _______ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm fine with Milton's language,
Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
though I want to make sure that while operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus...
To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last sentence of the RFP explains.
The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time frames to work under.
The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties."
I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.
This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
"The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica l comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.”
I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
Alissa
Joe
On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP. I do like your approach Milton even better.
Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Works for me as well. Thank you, all. Jari On 28 Aug 2014, at 18:19, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Me too. Alissa
On 8/28/14, 7:26 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
I agree with Milton's latest proposed modification. Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Jeudi 28 Août 2014 15:28:12 Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
As expressed on the call and in my own proposed modification, I do not oppose the sentiment behind JJ's modification. However, in some ways this wording undercuts the more liberal approach to input by saying that we "do not expect full proposals from non-operational communities." To my mind, this creates an unwanted dichotomy between the operational community proposal development process and "everyone else," when what we want is for op and non-operational communities to work together on a proposal.
Thus I could support this change only if the first clause is sawed off, to read:
"This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
Addressing Joe's concerns about our capacity, etc. I am not worried. While I strongly agree with him that we do not want to encourage groups to go off into their own silos and come up with a proposal in isolation (and I can think of two groups that have a tendency to do that), I think the RFP already puts major emphasis on widespread support for proposals. If anyone "goes silo" they should be prepared for the fact that their ideas will not be part of the final package unless they can show that they have support outside their silo and made a serious effort to gain support from the other parts of the community making a proposal. Also, I do not think we are going to get dozens of actual proposals.
-----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs@dyalog.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:48 PM To: Paul Wilson Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller; joseph alhadeff Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
Dear Colleagues,
following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a friendly amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the draft RFP:
"Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational communities, this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of the draft RFP.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a friendly amendment. Thanks.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled?
It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits.
thanks.
Paul.
_________________________________________________________________ _______ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm fine with Milton's language,
Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
though I want to make sure that while operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus...
To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last sentence of the RFP explains.
The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time frames to work under.
The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties."
I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.
This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
"The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica l comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.”
I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
Alissa
Joe
On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests > “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct > operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with > names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to > develop complete formal responses to this RFP. I do like your approach Milton even better.
> Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
It works for me as well. - a. On Aug 28, 2014, at 19:19 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Me too. Alissa
On 8/28/14, 7:26 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
I agree with Milton's latest proposed modification. Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Jeudi 28 Août 2014 15:28:12 Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
As expressed on the call and in my own proposed modification, I do not oppose the sentiment behind JJ's modification. However, in some ways this wording undercuts the more liberal approach to input by saying that we "do not expect full proposals from non-operational communities." To my mind, this creates an unwanted dichotomy between the operational community proposal development process and "everyone else," when what we want is for op and non-operational communities to work together on a proposal.
Thus I could support this change only if the first clause is sawed off, to read:
"This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
Addressing Joe's concerns about our capacity, etc. I am not worried. While I strongly agree with him that we do not want to encourage groups to go off into their own silos and come up with a proposal in isolation (and I can think of two groups that have a tendency to do that), I think the RFP already puts major emphasis on widespread support for proposals. If anyone "goes silo" they should be prepared for the fact that their ideas will not be part of the final package unless they can show that they have support outside their silo and made a serious effort to gain support from the other parts of the community making a proposal. Also, I do not think we are going to get dozens of actual proposals.
-----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs@dyalog.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:48 PM To: Paul Wilson Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller; joseph alhadeff Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
Dear Colleagues,
following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a friendly amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the draft RFP:
"Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational communities, this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of the draft RFP.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a friendly amendment. Thanks.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled?
It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits.
thanks.
Paul.
_________________________________________________________________ _______ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm fine with Milton's language,
Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
though I want to make sure that while operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus...
To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last sentence of the RFP explains.
The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time frames to work under.
The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties."
I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.
This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
"The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica l comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.”
I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
Alissa
Joe
On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests > “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct > operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with > names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to > develop complete formal responses to this RFP. I do like your approach Milton even better.
> Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Dear All, There arae legal and procedural problem in the darft I proposed amendments and do not understand nor convinced why some of you even do not wish to look at those relevant amendments as contained in REV 2 which I sent to you before TKS Kavouss 2014-08-29 18:18 GMT+02:00 Adiel Akplogan <adiel@afrinic.net>:
It works for me as well.
- a.
On Aug 28, 2014, at 19:19 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Me too. Alissa
On 8/28/14, 7:26 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
I agree with Milton's latest proposed modification. Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Jeudi 28 Août 2014 15:28:12 Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
As expressed on the call and in my own proposed modification, I do not oppose the sentiment behind JJ's modification. However, in some ways this wording undercuts the more liberal approach to input by saying that we "do not expect full proposals from non-operational communities." To my mind, this creates an unwanted dichotomy between the operational community proposal development process and "everyone else," when what we want is for op and non-operational communities to work together on a proposal.
Thus I could support this change only if the first clause is sawed off, to read:
"This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
Addressing Joe's concerns about our capacity, etc. I am not worried. While I strongly agree with him that we do not want to encourage groups to go off into their own silos and come up with a proposal in isolation (and I can think of two groups that have a tendency to do that), I think the RFP already puts major emphasis on widespread support for proposals. If anyone "goes silo" they should be prepared for the fact that their ideas will not be part of the final package unless they can show that they have support outside their silo and made a serious effort to gain support from the other parts of the community making a proposal. Also, I do not think we are going to get dozens of actual proposals.
-----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs@dyalog.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:48 PM To: Paul Wilson Cc: internal-cg@icann.org; Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller; joseph alhadeff Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
Dear Colleagues,
following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a friendly amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the draft RFP:
"Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational communities, this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of the draft RFP.
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a friendly amendment. Thanks.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson@apnic.net> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled?
It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits.
thanks.
Paul.
_________________________________________________________________ _______ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC < dg@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
I'm fine with Milton's language,
Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
though I want to make sure that while operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus...
To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last sentence of the RFP explains.
The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time frames to work under.
The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties."
I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.
This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
"The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica l comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.”
I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
Alissa
Joe
On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: >> The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests >> “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct >> operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with >> names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to >> develop complete formal responses to this RFP. > I do like your approach Milton even better. > >> Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how? > I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various > stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than > after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already > did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about > adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
All, I like Milton's approach, it is clean, there are minimal changes from the current largely supported state, and it is quite easily understood. Which brings another thought to mind -- shouldn't we translate this RFP in order to aid outreach/engagement; and are we accepting proposals in other languages or only in English? Apologies If I missed this while I was out. Finally, one minor point mentioned in the IAB/technical community -- in Section IV, can we consider splitting that into two sections; one for transition implications, and the other for satisfaction of NTIA criteria, they are obviously different. Best, Lynn On Aug 26, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Joe I think this is too complicated and too big a deviation from our earlier approach. I still think the solution to JJ’s concerns is to be found in the notion of the operational communities as convenors of proposal development processes that must include other interested parties.
I think all we need to do is alter the following sentence in the way I suggest below:
Original sentence:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) seeks complete formal responses to this RFP from the “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters).
Proposed modification:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP.
This is a simpler change, does not alter the basic assumptions of our charter, but also makes it clear that the operational communities are responsible for convening processes that, according to other language that is already in the RFP,
Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties. During the development of their proposals, the operational communities are requested to consult and work with other affected parties. Likewise, in order to help the ICG maintain its light coordination role, all other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate in community processes. … Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in developing their responses…. Etc.
Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:01 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
So here's a shot at compromise text... On 8/26/2014 8:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: I want to be on it.
Milton L Mueller Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
_______________________________________________ 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
On Aug 26, 2014, at 17:16 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Original sentence:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) seeks complete formal responses to this RFP from the “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters).
Proposed modification:
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP.
I will also support Milton’s language above combined with the one submitted by Jean-Jaques from the ALAC community. Thanks. - a.
participants (10)
-
Adiel Akplogan -
Alissa Cooper -
Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior -
Jari Arkko -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lynn St.Amour -
Milton L Mueller -
Paul Wilson -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques