[CWG-RFP3] Proposed Agenda for Wednesday 12 November Meeting

[Greg Shatan]

Milton,

I think you are missing something, which is not to say that these proposals
(none of which are "mine" in a proprietary or endorsement sense) are
perfect or fully featured.  They are intended to be Strawmen and to evolve
through the CWG process albeit on a very truncated timeframe.  So if these
proposals weren't "missing" something, I'd be shocked.

First, all three of the proposals contemplate a process where a breach of
the agreement with the IANA Functions Operator could lead to an RFP for a
new IANA Functions Operator (see Section 9).  Second, Strawmen 2 and 3
contemplate a contract with a limited term (I put in 3 years for a starting
point), and contemplate renewal only upon mutual agreement of the parties.
Implicit in that is the right of the "oversight body" not to agree to renew
and to instead seek a new IANA Functions Operator.  There are a lot of
different ways to handle the concept of renewal in an agreement, and the
"re-bidding" concept could certainly be more explicit, if that is what we
want to do.

Finally, I think that some parties to these discussions look at
separability as you stated, while for others, the point of separability is
to make IANA separate from ICANN.

Thanks for your comments.

Best regards,

Greg

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Greg
>
> I see a fundamental problem with your options, hinging in the concept of
> separability. The point of separability is not to make IANA itself separate
> from ICANN per se, but to allow the new contracting authority to open
> bidding to other possible IANA functions operators. In other words, the
> IANA contract should be periodic, as it was under NTIA, and potentially
> competitive - the contracting authority should be able to receive multiple
> applications for the function and decide which one is best.
>
>
>
> In all of your models, I don’t see that happening – instead I see an
> emphasis on the separability of IANA from ICANN organizationally, but no
> concept of periodic renewal and open, competitive bidding.
>
>
>
> Am I missing something, or are you?
>
>
>
> *From:* cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 11, 2014 10:28 PM
> *To:* Grace Abuhamad
> *Cc:* RFP3
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-RFP3] Proposed Agenda for Wednesday 12 November
> Meeting
>
>
>
> All:
>
>
>
> In the course of preparing for tomorrow's call, including discussions with
> the Co-Chairs of the CWG and other subgroup leads, it was decided that a
> preferred course of action would be to prepare three "Strawman Proposals"
> rather than a single "Framework Document" with multiple variables.  These
> three Strawman Proposals are attached.  The proposals are organized on a
> consistent outline, largely taken from the "Variables" document.  This will
> allow us to consider the proposals both "vertically" and "horizontally"
> (i.e., across the documents), and to swap sections as we move toward the
> ultimate deliverable of a single proposal.  The proposals are intended to
> capture most of the major alternatives discussed on this list, the CWG
> list, and in our calls, as well as in other documents circulated in the
> community.  However, if a particular alternative has not been captured in
> any proposal, that does not mean that it is "dead" or even disfavored.
> Similarly, I expect there will be additional issues to be considered in any
> proposal, and these should be captured as well, either on the call or
> thereafter.
>
>
>
> I apologize for the lateness of the hour; I hope you will see that the
> alternatives are not unfamiliar, even if they are now repackaged in
> proposal form.  In our call tomorrow morning, I would like to review and
> work through these proposals in lieu of items 2 and 3 of the agenda.  In
> the course of that review, we should aim to consider pro's and con's, which
> will be added to a document during our call, and then posted or circulated
> for further editing.  I expect that the Strawman Proposals will be
> similarly posted or circulated.
>
>
>
> I look forward to our call.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>  Hi all,
>
>
>
> Here is the proposed agenda for the RFP3 subgroup meeting on Wednesday:
>
>    1. Welcome and Roll Call
>    2. Review of Variables Document (link here
>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PIySH4OEdebff1lU7foynDe8S3PZEvjG2W_UCpJamM/edit?usp=sharing>
>    )
>    3. Review of Framework Document (to be circulated before call)
>    4. Live-Editing of Pros and Cons Document (to be circulated before
>    call)
>    5. Thoughts on this sub-group on how best to use time in Frankfurt
>    6. Assignments for fleshing out parts of Framework Document
>    7. AOB
>
>  Best,
>
> Grace
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
> Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141112/f35f28af/attachment.html>