[Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Fri Aug 22 20:07:23 UTC 2014
Joe,
Here I think we need to distinguish between actual proposals, which the RFP solicits and attempts to structure, and public comments on the proposal(s) that we put together.
E.g., when you talk about a group addressing "a specific issue of interest such as accountability", it sounds to me like you are talking about people reacting to specific proposals that have actually been made. In that case, they can review the proposals and assess the adequacy with which they address, say, the accountability issue, and submit comments during the public comment period accordingly.
What I fear is that your current language will encourage groups to inundate the ICG with comments like "We think accountability is important and ICANN needs more of it" BEFORE any proposals have actually been made - as if WE were the ones developing the proposal. We cannot do anything with such comments. Either people concoct and propose specific institutional, legal and operational changes that enhance accountability (in which case they are helping to develop a proposal) or they are just expressing opinions, which is only helpful to us if these opinions are about specific proposals that we have before us.
Do you understand my concern here?
--MM
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 3:41 PM
To: internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
Milton:
I have been a strong proponent of making sure that proposals are developed only in the communities, but I am not convinced that those processes will necessarily be accessible beyond the normal members of and participants to that community. If there is a specific issue of interest, such as accountability, and there is a specific opinion on that I think we need to be open to those comments. We can try to make the timing of more general stakeholder comments coincide with the publication of the proposal for comments, but we need a section that better addresses how we are open to comments outside of the drafting communities and how and when they can participate in our process.
Joe
On 8/22/2014 3:19 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Forwarding on behalf of Milton who is having list email issues ...
On 8/22/14, 11:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu><mailto:mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AM
To: 'Alissa Cooper'; internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:internal-cg at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision
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>
[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<mailto: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><mailto: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> [mailto:internal-cg-
bounces at icann.org<mailto: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><mailto: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%<https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%25>
20v08.docx
Paul
On 19 Aug 2014, at 8:52 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net><mailto: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><mailto: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<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto: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/bdd33e6c/attachment.html>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list