[Internal-cg] Revised RFP

Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net
Mon Aug 18 00:04:55 UTC 2014



> Dear All ..
>  
> I still have to go through the latest version of the RFP but would like to make a few remarks in light of this thread of discussion:
> -          Like Mohamed, Adiel and maybe others, I hope we can encourage and convince the community with the importance and benefits of early discussions and consolidated submissions without setting a hard limit of 3 or 4 proposals; which I believe is somehow reflected in the sentence referenced in Milton’s email below .. I also support changing “expected” to “required”  as suggested by Milton ..
> -          Similar to what Martin said regarding ccTLDs who do not engage with ICANN, there may be also governments who do not engage with ICANN and still want to submit their views .. Moreover there may be governments who already engage with ICANN and would still like to put their proposals on record .. I’m not saying this should be encouraged but saying we cannot but accept such submissions ..
> -          The above suggestions do not diminish the importance of the 3/4 proposals of the operational communities ..
> I do apologize if the above points have already been addressed and settled ..   

I agree with Manal's 3 points above.

>  
> Furthermore, I believe it’s important to discuss Milton’s below statement which summarizes the situation perfectly well .. I believe ICG should not “make a decision limiting who can submit” (rather encourage and convince) .. On the other hand ICG should, to the extent possible, avoid making “a decision about which proposals are selected” as it already has a limited role of integrating and consolidating all inputs into one proposal .. Accordingly, in case of conflicting views, selections may be settled either by how broadly a proposal is supported or preferably by reverting back to the (relevant) communities to make the choice .. In all cases, in a perfect situation, we should work on allowing iterations of public comment periods (as many as needed and as time allows) to fine tune the final proposal, make selections whenever necessary and ensure broadest community support ..

Agreed regarding the theoretical perfect situation, but we cannot rely on the communities to grant us this luxury.  I believe we will inevitably need to make judgements/decisions at some level (as James said), and the difficult of doing that will depend on the specifics.

On submissions, I think we cannot rule out anyone in advance; we can only strongly direct people to community processes.  Can we draw a clear distinction between the sources of proposals: for instance while we will work to fully reconcile the community proposals, we will consider other proposals and make best efforts to incorporate them, and attempt to note where this has not been possible (and all will go on the public record of course).  We should probably also note that we will work within the target timeframes established, and make our best efforts to fully consider all inputs received.  It is not possible to guarantee this when we have no idea how many proposals we will see.

Paul.

>  
> Kind Regards
> --Manal
>  
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 7:51 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at icann.org Internal
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised RFP
>  
> Interesting points, Milton.  Especially with regard to:
>  
> "So, take your pick: make a decision limiting who can submit, or make a decision about which proposals are selected."
>  
> Personally I do not believe the ICG can totally insulate itself from making material decisions (or “choices”) on the proposals, regardless of the path chosen.  Even if submissions are limited to the smallest possible number, there are bound to be minor differences between them that require some degree of reconciliation by the ICG.
>  
> Thanks—
>  
> J.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Date: Friday, August 15, 2014 at 11:38 
> To: ICG List <internal-cg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised RFP
>  
> I’ve reviewed v 0.7 with comments of Martin, Mohamed and Adiel, and am also addressing Russ Mundy’s observations on the RFP.
>  
> First, an easy issue: nothing in the language referring to the IANA contract implies that anyone is “bound” by anything. It simply uses the current IANA contract as a uniform point of reference. Let me reproduce the language here:
>  
> “In the interest of consistency, each community is encouraged to review and consider the current IANA Functions Contract between NTIA and ICANN when describing existing arrangements and proposing changes to existing arrangements.”
>  
> I think that is clearly just asking for a consistent point of reference and we can dispose of this “don’t bind the operational communities” issue completely.
>  
> The more difficult issue concerns the leading role of the operational communities and the possibility of multiple submissions. This problem challenges the concept that the ICG is a “non-decisional” body. If we decide who can and cannot submit proposals, we are in fact making a critical substantive decision, one that profoundly influences the nature of the proposals. On the other hand, if we allow or encourage proposals by anyone and everyone who feels like submitting one, we are put into the position of selecting among them and even modifying/reassembling them.
>  
> So, take your pick: make a decision limiting who can submit, or make a decision about which proposals are selected.
>  
> I actually think the current draft finds the appropriate middle ground between this Scylla and Charybdis. It strongly encourages everyone to work together in an operational community-led process, but does not expressly prohibit other proposals. Here is the language:
>  
> During the development of their proposals, the operational communities are expected to consult and work with other affected parties; likewise, other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate in community processes, as the ICG is requiring proposals that have consensus support from a broad range of stakeholder groups.
>  
> Only change I would suggest is that we change “expected” to “required” in the first line.
>  
> To Mohamed, I would say that the operational communities HAVE TO be considered the primary stakeholders in the transition, because they are the people who rely on the IANA functions in a direct, operational sense and its functionality and responsiveness  is a life or death matter for them.
> --MM
>  
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 11:28 AM
> To: Mohamed El Bashir; internal-cg at icann.org Internal
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised RFP
>  
> Hi All,
>  
> Mohamed beat me to it, so I have applied the amendments/comments I was working on on top of his and posted back in dropbox.
>  
> I’d like to make a couple of explanatory notes, though:
>  
> 1.      There seems to be a tendency to widen the number of fronts:  I am concerned that, if we open to all stakeholder communities, we are essentially bypassing the focus on the three functions as centres of thinking.  The more I have thought about this, the more I see little value for any community NOT to submit its own proposal(s) whereas we really need the different groups to work with all affected stakeholders on their bit of the puzzle.  I thought (really believed) that were working on the operational lead approach expecting each to adopt its own process with its affected parties and other stakeholders.  I hope that we can keep to this approach.
>  
> 2.      I’ve noted in a previous mail on this document that there are a number of ccTLDs who do not (and will not) engage with ICANN.  I’m happy for us not to encourage individual or small-group submissions, but we have to understand that there is a high probability that we will get input, so there is no point in trying to discourage them.  But we do need to think about how this might be dealt with and pose our questions to the wider community in a different form.  One way might be to offer a “fast track” approach to identify specific problems or requirements that they feel need to be addressed.
>  
> 3.      I was left puzzled by references to an input from Daniel which I was not able to find.  I have commented on this paragraph somewhat in the dark (apologies if I’ve missed the point), but it does seem to me to be important for us to use the current NTIA/ICANN as the current basis.  This is then reflected in a couple of comments in the last section, on maintaining the framework for service delivery and on the clear separation of policy responsibility from the IANA.
>  
> By the way, is it v0.7 (as in the file title) or v0.6 (as in the document)?
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Martin
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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