[Internal-cg] How many proposals? and ccTLDs/gTLDs

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Aug 18 05:18:50 UTC 2014

Dear All,
I agree with Joe
We must be clear on what we asking for and know ,if any reply received from
non customer communities, how we could treat them .We should be carefull
not to creat any trap or any bottle neck for ourselves.
By the I have not been able to have final version with revision mark BUT
NOT COMMENTS ON THE MARGIN which we do not know how we should treat them
Does someone have any information on what I am asking for

2014-08-18 6:18 GMT+02:00 joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>:

> In the current version, where we have the communities check boxes, I think
> our reference to the non-customer communities is confusing. We welcome
> comments of all on all of our documents, like our RFP and concepts of what
> should be in a proposal, but are we asking non-customer stakeholders to
> provide proposals? I think proposal suggestions/comments of non-customer
> stakeholder communities would be most relevant as part of the proposal
> development process or on the proposals once submitted?  The check boxes
> look like we are asking for non-customer communities to submit proposals?
> I would certainly encourage them to submit comments on the RFP if we have
> missing elements and on community proposals either in their development or
> to us once they are received.
> I have tried to download the latest version of the document to provide
> some edits, but I get read error messages after download, has anyone else
> had that problem?
> Joe
> On 8/17/2014 9:32 PM, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
>> I like Alissa and Patrik's approach, and favor working towards 3 or 4
>> proposals.
>> As Alissa pointed out, if we do get more sub-groups submitting
>> proposals,  I believe the requirements in Section V of the RFP, where we
>> ask the communities to provide an assessment of the consensus and a
>> description of areas of contention, will be critical to managing this.
>> Lynn
>> On Aug 14, 2014, at 12:25 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>  Suggestion:
>>> We do request proposals from the three main categories of tasks, names,
>>> numbers or protocol parameters. If the proposal and/or area is designed
>>> such that the category is to be divided in sub categories (like gTLDs and
>>> ccTLDs), that is acceptable although clarifications how the subcategories
>>> are related (and not) to each other should be explained.
>>>     Patrik
>>> On 14 aug 2014, at 02:53, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>>  Over in the thread about the communities RFP [1], some of us have been
>>>> discussing how many proposals the ICG should request and expect. We also
>>>> discussed this in London.
>>>> My feeling is that as far as full community proposals — i.e., documents
>>>> that contain all five sections of the latest RFP proposal [2], fully
>>>> completed — we should be open to receiving either 3 proposals (names,
>>>> numbers, protocol parameters) or 4 proposals (gTLDs, ccTLDs, numbers,
>>>> protocol parameters). From all the discussions I’ve had with ccTLD folks,
>>>> it seems as though both their current arrangements and what they may
>>>> potentially propose for post-transition arrangements could differ from what
>>>> gets proposed for gTLDs (although not necessarily in incompatible ways). I
>>>> think we should be open to this possibility. Of course, we would expect the
>>>> ccTLD community and the gTLD community to work together to try to align
>>>> themselves on areas of overlap, in the same way that we expect all of the
>>>> other communities to do so. And our preference would still be for 3
>>>> proposals rather than 4.
>>>> Saying that we should be open to accepting 3 or 4 full proposals is
>>>> *not* the same as saying we should be open to receiving 10 or 20, where any
>>>> stakeholder can submit a full proposal. I don’t think this would be
>>>> productive, and I don’t know what we as the ICG would do with proposals
>>>> that do not come from the operational communities. Of course, we want
>>>> individual stakeholders to be able to provide input and feedback, and I
>>>> think we’ve done a good job of outlining our expectations as far as how
>>>> that will work in the charter. But soliciting input is different from
>>>> soliciting a full proposal for any of the functions — those should come
>>>> from the operational communities.
>>>> This leaves the case Milton has pointed out, where an operational
>>>> community splits into two or three groups that produce separate proposals
>>>> for the same function. Again, this is not ideal, and I think we should set
>>>> the expectation that we want to receive at most 1 proposal from each
>>>> operational community (with the caveat above about ccTLDs vs. gTLDs). If it
>>>> turns out that we get two or three proposals for the same function from
>>>> different factions of the same community, we’ll have to deal with that then
>>>> (I don’t know how), but the expectation we should set from the outset is
>>>> for uniformity within each community.
>>>> One way to smooth over the potential faction problem would be to build
>>>> on one of the requirements we already have in the RFP (Section V), which is
>>>> for the communities to provide an assessment of the consensus level and a
>>>> description of areas of contention or disagreement. If a particular
>>>> community develops a minority faction with a counter-proposal to what the
>>>> rest of the community proposes, it could be documented there (and we would
>>>> probably want to elaborate that better in the RFP). But I think this would
>>>> only work if the counter-proposal could be viewed as a minority opinion,
>>>> and I’m not sure if that’s a plausible scenario for any of the communities.
>>>> Thoughts? I mostly want to jump start this discussion among the names
>>>> folks, as I expect it to be fairly straightforward the protocol parameters
>>>> community to produce a single proposal, and the same for numbers.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alissa
>>>> [1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000869.html
>>>> [2] https://www.dropbox.com/s/ztrzblyax0540m5/IANA%
>>>> 20Transition%20RFP%20v07%20%28ALC-MM%29.docx
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140818/63398fc1/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list