[Internal-cg] Revised RFP

[Alissa Cooper]

Hi all,

I reviewed the various RFP versions, including the version that Milton
recently sent. I’ve attached and uploaded to Dropbox my own suggested
version. I know there is a danger in suggesting yet another different
format, but let me try to explain my thinking.

I sympathize with Milton’s concern that the community proposals need to
make a clear distinction between existing, pre-transition arrangements and
proposed, post-transition ones. However, by creating a table with a “now”
column and a “future” column for every element in the RFP, I think we
would be giving the communities the wrong impression that they should be
thinking about possible changes to all aspects of IANA. That is a much
wider scope than what we have all agreed to work on and what NTIA is
asking for, I believe. Of course discussions about stewardship transition
may (and already have) spurred discussions about changes to other aspects,
which is great, but I don’t think those things are in the scope of what we
specifically are asking the communities for.

So, in the attached version, I’ve done a re-organization. The document is
divided into two main parts: Introduction and Required Proposal Elements.
The outline of the Required Proposal Elements section is as follows:

I. Description of Community’s Use of IANA
II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements
	A. Policy
	B. Oversight and Accountability
III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements
IV. Transition Implications
V. Community Process

I think this structure makes it more clear where we’re asking for
descriptions of existing arrangements, and where we’re asking for proposed
changes related to the transition (and specifically related to oversight
and accountability).

Some other changes I suggest:

* I think we still need more clarity on who we’re asking for proposals
from and how many we expect to receive. I found the existing drafts
muddled on this point and tried to clarify. We might also still have some
disagreements about this — good topic for discussion on the call next
week. In any event, I adopted the “operational communities” language from
the charter so that we can be consistent.

* On Russ Mundy’s point about the current contract: I agree with Daniel
that we can’t really require the communities to leverage the existing
contract any more than they want to. So I softened this language a bit.

* In the Required Proposal Elements sections, I tried to re-use as many of
the existing bullet points/table rows as possible, but for many of them I
found myself wondering what the bullets actually meant. I think this is
not the best sign, since as an IETF participant I wouldn’t necessarily
know what to put in a protocol parameters proposal in response to this
RFP. So I tried to elaborate on the bullet points somewhat. I may or may
not have captured their intended meaning, and I put comments in on some of
them when I really didn’t know what they were aiming towards.

Best,
Alissa


On 8/11/14, 1:33 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:


>Dear colleagues
>I spent some time thinking about the RFP and how it could be improved and
>came up with the attached draft, which is also in Dropbox.
>I changed some language in the preamble, with some comments in Word
>explaining why.
> 
>The main change, however is one of format. I think when commnities fill
>out this form we will need a clear distinction between what their
>requirements, policy processes, etc. are NOW, and what they are proposing
>to CHANGE. Therefore I have
> created a series of tables that lines up Current arrangements from
>Proposed arrangements. This should make it clearer what exactly they are
>proposing to change and what the implications might be.
>
> 
>Take a look 
> 
>Milton L Mueller
>Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>Internet Governance Project
>http://internetgovernance.org
> 
> 
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IANA Transition RFP v0.6 (ALC).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 36997 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140813/1274283a/IANATransitionRFPv0.6ALC.docx>