[Internal-cg] Further RFP revision

Fri Aug 22 15:04:04 UTC 2014

Alas, there are still some unresolved issues here. 

I still have to insist that the first and second paragraphs contain language that cover the same topic, but provide different meanings and thus open to door to conflicting interpretations that could cause us trouble. We need to choose one or the other of the meanings and delete the other. 

Here is an exegesis:

From the middle of paragraph 1:

"Other parties may provide comments to the ICG on particular aspects that may be covered by proposals that may be of significant interest to them, for review by the ICG as time and resources permit. The ICG will direct comments received from other parties to the relevant operational communities as appropriate."

Paragraph 2: 

"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."

My view is that the material from paragraph 1 must be deleted so as to not confuse people and undermine the message in paragraph 2. 

As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1 invites parties to provide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the _plural_ form) that are being considered by the operational communities. To me, this seems to invite people to provide ongoing commentary on the ideas being considered by the operational communities as they develop a proposal or consider alternatives. That is not what we want. We want finished, agreed proposals. 

Paragraph 2 is much clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages" affected parties to participate in the operational community process for the same of "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but it does not completely close the door to the receipt of finished alternative proposals where consensus is not possible. 

I really think that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 are articulating separate models of response and we cannot allow the RFP to be released with such a critical ambiguity in it. 

I also made a few minor changes, related to labeling IIA as Policy source and the second bullet point under IIB 

I also responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness. My point is that various proposals might come up with different ways of excluding or separating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can’t use the existing method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is simply asking them to explain the implications of their changes for existing policy arrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this issue, because it says almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B. So do we need it at all?

Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know what kind of a parallel universe the rest of you live in, but in the world I have become familiar with as a social scientist, there is no "testing" of legal and institutional accountability arrangements. We can project or estimate based on past experience, but that is all. If there are technical and operational changes called for by a proposal, yes, we can talk about pre-testing them in some kind of laboratory set up. But asking people to "test" what will happen if the NTIA is not there and some other accountability mechanism is, is asking for the impossible. So I have altered the language to deal with this. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PM
> To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision
> 
> I took one more stab at this — v10 attached and uploaded.
> 
> There was some new text in v09(jha) about how people should feel free to
> comment to us about transparency, completeness, etc. I think that is true as a
> general matter, but that is not what we are asking for specifically in this RFP.
> That is what we will ask for — from anyone who cares to answer — after we
> have the proposal components submitted (by December :)).
> So I removed that text.
> 
> I also found the new first paragraph quite confusing — it said we are issuing this
> RFP “for consideration” by all parties, which makes it sound like we’re asking
> people to comment on the RFP itself, rather than submit proposals. So, I did
> some editing on the first two paragraphs, and also tried to work in the good
> suggestion from Manal that we re-emphasize that we will direct comments to
> the operational communities where we can. Here is how the first two
> paragraphs read now:
> 
> "The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)  is seeking complete
> formal responses to this Request for Proposals (RFP) from the “operational
> communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships
> with IANA; namely names, numbers, protocol parameters). Other interested and
> affected parties are strongly encouraged to provide their inputs through open
> processes run by these operational communities.  Other parties may provide
> comments to the ICG on particular aspects that may be covered by proposals
> that may be of significant interest to them, for review by  the ICG as time and
> resources permit. The ICG will direct comments received from other parties to
> the relevant operational communities as appropriate.
> 
> 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.”
> 
> In section 0, I edited “change” to “address” in "Identify which category of the
> IANA functions this submission proposes to change” since some communities
> might propose no changes.
> 
> In section 4 I still think there are three bullet points that need elaboration, of just
> one sentence each, because they are not clear on their face:
> 
> ·Continuity of service requirements
> ·Risks
> ·Service integration aspects
> 
> 
> For example, “Risks” seems so vague that each community could write a novel
> about them and not be complete. What are we really looking for here?
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> On 8/19/14, 8:50 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> >I have uploaded v9(jha) with a few suggested edits to further clarify
> >the operational vs impacted communities comment process... Also a
> >question of whether testing should be limited to Section III - are
> >those the only changes contemplated that could impact stability and
> >functionality?
> >
> >I think we are getting pretty close to a final draft...
> >
> >Joe
> >On 8/19/2014 11:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >> Paul:
> >> Done. It is uploaded as docx as version 09. Also proposed some minor
> >>clarity changes to the preamble and added a comment responding to
> >>Martin's nervousness. We can't have Martin being nervous.
> >>
> >> Milton L Mueller
> >> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School
> >> of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-
> >>> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:05 AM
> >>> To: ICG
> >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision
> >>>
> >>> Milton, thanks for your comments on the "section 0" part.  this adds
> >>>some  needed clarity about the whole orientation of this process.
> >>>
> >>> If you can, please make further edits to the version 8 document
> >>> linked below.
> >>>
> >>> Paul.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 19 Aug 2014, at 9:30 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Apologies for the delay, a new RFP revision is now online:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%
> >>> 20v08.docx
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 19 Aug 2014, at 8:52 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am in the process of reconciling all inputs on the latest RFP
> >>>>>document,
> >>> and will have a clean version available in Dropbox shortly.
> >>>>> My intention is to go run this document sequentially during
> >>>>> tonight's
> >>> meeting, seeking ICG members' views and suggestions.
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IANA Transition RFP v11.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 32599 bytes
Desc: IANA Transition RFP v11.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140822/0e3554e0/IANATransitionRFPv11.docx>