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

[Robert Guerra]

Milton,

Your comments and those of Avri on the call earlier this morning have
made me think of another possible way forward, what not sure if is in
scope so let me know..

That being, changing object of what needs changing. Instead of focusing
on IANA as we have, it might worthwhile to also think about options that
could replace NTIA.

A new independent entity take on the authorization step(s) that NTIA now
performs, review service level agreements, and subject to regular review
(5, 10 years?) assign the IANA contract.

Before going further, do let me know if you think it would be in scope
or not.

regards

Robert



On 2014-11-12 10:47 AM, Milton L Mueller 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
> Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>