All, As you have noticed ICANN posted an announcement as a result of a request to have the draft RFP posted, for transparency reasons. I am working with ICANN on coming up with issues that makes this clear. <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-02-en> Patrik
On 5 sep 2014, at 10:01, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
As you have noticed ICANN posted an announcement as a result of a request to have the draft RFP posted, for transparency reasons. I am working with ICANN on coming up with issues that makes this clear.
SORRY, wrong URL, that was the information that the Secretariat RFP WILL be released. This was the one I was thinking of: <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en> Patrik
-----Original Message-----
As you have noticed ICANN posted an announcement as a result of a request to have the draft RFP posted, for transparency reasons.
This is why we need our own secretariat, under our own control. If anyone had any doubt, this clinches it. A request by whom?
I am working with ICANN on coming up with issues that makes this clear.
Patrik, I sympathize that you are probably very busy, so that statement above on 'working with ICANN' was probably written in a rush, but I want to know more about how this is being handled, and the phrase 'coming up with issues that makes this clear' is not very helpful. Can you be more specific on what you are doing with ICANN?
On 5 sep 2014, at 10:17, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Patrik, I sympathize that you are probably very busy, so that statement above on 'working with ICANN' was probably written in a rush, but I want to know more about how this is being handled, and the phrase 'coming up with issues that makes this clear' is not very helpful. Can you be more specific on what you are doing with ICANN?
FWIW, I have seen at least Adiel and Daniel correct the various postings made. Grace, that did the posting, is *not* our support staff. I wrote back to our support staff the following:
Alice, Ergys,
What Alissa requested was to have the draft RFP posted. Nothing more, nothing less.
Can you Alice and Ergys in cooperation with others at ICANN come with some suggestion on how to either reword the announcement and/or send a new?
Patrik
This as an ability for me to (for example) see what you in the ICG suggest we request ICANN to do. Patrik
On 5.09.14 9:01 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
All,
As you have noticed ICANN posted an announcement as a result of a request to have the draft RFP posted, for transparency reasons. I am working with ICANN on coming up with issues that makes this clear.
On my own initiative I have just sent the following to ianatransition@icann.org where I saw the announcement: "Be aware that this text has not been formally agreed by the ICG yet. It is a very very stable draft, but changes may still occur before it is agreed. Daniel"
I have made a similar statement on the IANA transition panel at IGF, in my own capacity, as my understanding of the draft with the intention of providing communities working on proposals the substantive elements of the RFP as soon as possible. On 9/5/2014 3:21 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 5.09.14 9:01 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
All,
As you have noticed ICANN posted an announcement as a result of a request to have the draft RFP posted, for transparency reasons. I am working with ICANN on coming up with issues that makes this clear.
On my own initiative I have just sent the following to ianatransition@icann.org where I saw the announcement:
"Be aware that this text has not been formally agreed by the ICG yet. It is a very very stable draft, but changes may still occur before it is agreed.
Daniel"
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
These corrections are good, but confusion about the RFP and its status is a Bad Thing. I would suggest that the same ICANN staff who sent the announcement should send a retraction to the same lists to which it was sent, saying very simply and clearly that the transmission was premature, the RFP is still a draft, and the ICG will formally issue the final RFP on September 8
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 3:34 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Posting of draft RFP
I have made a similar statement on the IANA transition panel at IGF, in my own capacity, as my understanding of the draft with the intention of providing communities working on proposals the substantive elements of the RFP as soon as possible. On 9/5/2014 3:21 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 5.09.14 9:01 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
All,
As you have noticed ICANN posted an announcement as a result of a request to have the draft RFP posted, for transparency reasons. I am working with ICANN on coming up with issues that makes this clear.
On my own initiative I have just sent the following to ianatransition@icann.org where I saw the announcement:
"Be aware that this text has not been formally agreed by the ICG yet. It is a very very stable draft, but changes may still occur before it is agreed.
Daniel"
_______________________________________________ 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, I opened the URL and I read Quote '" (i.e. those with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters). " Unquote This is not correct as the beginning should be : including BUT NOT i.e. Such language restrict the proposals other than those three operational communities involved in the process Pls check the language that we have included in the DRAFT RFP Regards Kavouss 2014-09-05 9:54 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
These corrections are good, but confusion about the RFP and its status is a Bad Thing. I would suggest that the same ICANN staff who sent the announcement should send a retraction to the same lists to which it was sent, saying very simply and clearly that the transmission was premature, the RFP is still a draft, and the ICG will formally issue the final RFP on September 8
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 3:34 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Posting of draft RFP
I have made a similar statement on the IANA transition panel at IGF, in my own capacity, as my understanding of the draft with the intention of providing communities working on proposals the substantive elements of the RFP as soon as possible. On 9/5/2014 3:21 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 5.09.14 9:01 , Patrik Fältström wrote:
All,
As you have noticed ICANN posted an announcement as a result of a request to have the draft RFP posted, for transparency reasons. I am working with ICANN on coming up with issues that makes this clear.
On my own initiative I have just sent the following to ianatransition@icann.org where I saw the announcement:
"Be aware that this text has not been formally agreed by the ICG yet. It is a very very stable draft, but changes may still occur before it is agreed.
Daniel"
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (5)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Milton L Mueller -
Patrik Fältström