[Internal-cg] Revised RFP

[Paul Wilson]

Initial response: This look like very good progress - thanks Alissa and all.

As far as I’m concerned, the intended meaning of past versions is well captured and clarified, though I agree that the highlighted points in part IV need to be expanded.

Paul.


________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100

See you at APNIC 38!                      http://conference.apnic.net/38





On 14 Aug 2014, at 5:19 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> 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
> 
> <IANA Transition RFP v0.6 (ALC).docx>_______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg