[Internal-cg] Further RFP revision

Elise Gerich elise.gerich at icann.org
Fri Aug 22 17:14:27 UTC 2014


May I suggest that the language in the RFP be consistent in using ³IANA
functions² instead of IANA services and other substitutes?  There are
services that are performed by the IANA department that are not IANA
functions; for example the time zone database.  Using substitutes for ³IANA
functions² may lead to submissions that include things that are not within
the IANA Functions contract with the USG.

For example in version 10, Item I. "Description of Community¹s Use of IANA²
could be interpreted to include all of the things done by the IANA
Department within ICANN and not just the things that are done as part of the
IANA Functions Contract. Another example is the use of ³IANA services² as a
substitute for ³IANA functions².

Thank you,
-- Elise 

From:  Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
Date:  Thursday, August 21, 2014 at 5:40 PM
To:  joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>, "internal-cg at icann.org"
<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 ³for consideration² by all parties, which makes it sound
> like we¹re 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
> ³operational communities² 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.²
> In section 0, I edited ³change² to ³address² in "Identify which category
> of the IANA functions this submission proposes to change² 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, ³Risks² 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140822/13080fcb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5037 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140822/13080fcb/smime.p7s>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list