[Internal-cg] Redraft of RFP

Russ Mundy mundy at tislabs.com
Wed Aug 6 22:26:42 UTC 2014


Thanks for the comments, perhaps I should provide a bit more background on the thinking that led me to make the suggestion to ask the communities to make direct references when appropriate:

First, since our primary (only job) as the ICG is to assemble a single proposal to the NTIA for replacing the NTIA functions, referencing the NTIA contract (that contractually does include the ICANN Proposal) should make the single (integrated) proposal delivered by the ICG much more understandable by NTIA.  This seems rather important since NTIA will be the ones that decide on whether or not the single proposal is satisfactory - it needs to be understandable by them.

Second, since the ICANN Proposal is part of the NTIA contract (NTIA did this by way of a process that's common in US Govt contracts), it should accurately accurately reflect a the current IANA processes carried out by ICANN IANA functions staff (it would also be beneficial to know if current practice differs from the contract requirements).  We want the communities to describe the current processes and the ICANN Proposal provides excellent detail about (if you'll excuse some SSAC terminology) how ICANN provides the "Policy Implementor" functions.  Additionally, it should be much easier for the communities to describe what they want to see changed from the current operation.  I don't see any risk of the ICG being accused of prejudice if all communities are asked (not required) to make reference to what should be current practice.

Thirdly, if the various communities describe their current and desired processes for the IANA functions through references to a single reference point (i.e., the ICANN Proposal), it should make the ICG's job of identifying conflicts and inconsistencies much more achievable.  I have had several experiences evaluating RFP responses (including ones where the selectees were supposed to work together compatibly and without conflicts) and I can say with certainty that it is nearly impossible to identify conflicts, let alone determine compatibility, unless the proposals are asked to relate to some common point of reference - I'm suggesting that the ICANN Proposal portion of the current NTIA contract be that common point of reference.


On Aug 4, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:

> On 2.08.14 0:14 , Russ Mundy wrote:
>> ...
>> The first item is that we should make as much use as possible of the existing Contract documentation in our RFP to the communitie
> Russ,
> I agree that communities would be well advised to study this
> documentation and that we should reference it on an appropriate
> 'resources' page.
> Using any of this language directly or referencing it in our RFP is not
> necessary. It would only provide an opportunity to accuse us of prejudice.
> We are in fact doing much more by requesting that proposals start with a
> description of the status-quo. This will direct the communities in the
> right direction and also force them to agree on their perception of the
> status quo.
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list