[Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Sat Aug 23 15:33:57 UTC 2014

I oppose having a public comment period on the RFP. The RFP is not the kind of document for which general public comments make sense. 
I think we can use the less formal network model of interaction instead; i.e., individual ICG members share the penultimate draft with the people they represent and get some reaction over the next few days. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 5:44 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller; joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
> Milton, all,
> Attached is a v12 that tries to clarify further what the ICG is requesting and how
> comments can be provided (Dropbox seems to be having an outage, I will upload
> later). I also carried forward some of Manal’s edits and edited Section IV based
> on Narelle’s email.
> There is one issue that Joe has raised that I don’t think needs to be explained in
> the RFP document itself but that we do need to decide about, which is whether
> we will solicit public comments about the contents of the RFP. Here is my
> assessment of that question:
> On the one hand, I feel like we have some independent authority here. If we ask
> for comments on the RFP and get comments back that say “half of the things
> you’re asking for are unnecessary,” I don’t think we should necessarily take
> them out. We were selected to deliver something credible to NTIA and I think
> it’s our decision as to what parts add up to credibility.
> On the other hand, someone might point out things that we missed. Of course
> any of the communities could and should provide additional information they
> think is appropriate in their proposal components — it’s not like we’re going to
> ignore some section of a proposal document we receive because we didn’t
> explicitly ask for it. We already ask for as much explanatory material as they
> want to give. So I’m not sure those kinds of comments will add a lot of value
> either.
> Personally, I’m in a situation where I’m receiving pointed emails from IETF folks
> who are wondering why the RFP hasn’t been published yet so they can align their
> work with the RFP. So I’m sensitive to getting something out the door ASAP. And
> I do not think people will be pleased if we publish the RFP on, say, next Thursday
> with a 1-week comment period that overlaps almost entirely with people’s
> travel to and participation in the IGF.
> So my opinion is that a specific public comment period on the contents of the
> RFP is not strictly necessary. But, if others think it is, perhaps we could publish
> the draft next week and circulate it to the communities, with the caveat that
> people can send comments about the RFP content itself to icg-forum at icann.org
> with a deadline in the second week of September, and we may choose to update
> the RFP based on those comments after that. I think the former is preferable
> though.
> Alissa
> On 8/22/14, 1:07 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> >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
> >MuellerSent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AMTo: 'Alissa Cooper';
> >internal-cg at icann.orgSubject: 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 containlanguage that cover
> >the same topic, but provide different meanings andthus open to door to
> >conflicting interpretations that could cause ustrouble. We need to
> >choose one or the other of the meanings and deletethe other.  Here is an
> exegesis:
> >
> >>From the middle of paragraph 1: "Other parties may provide comments to
> >>the ICG on particular aspects thatmay 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 directcomments received from other
> >>parties to the relevant operationalcommunities as appropriate."
> >>Paragraph 2:  "During the development of their proposals, the
> >>operational communitiesare expected to consult and work with other
> >>affected parties; likewise,other affected parties are strongly
> >>encouraged to participate incommunity processes, as the ICG is
> >>requiring proposals that haveconsensus support from a broad range of
> >>stakeholder groups." My view is that the material from paragraph 1
> >>must be deleted so as tonot confuse people and undermine the message
> >>in paragraph 2. As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1
> >>invites parties toprovide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the
> >>_plural_ form) that arebeing considered by the operational
> >>communities. To me, this seems toinvite people to provide ongoing
> >>commentary on the ideas being consideredby the operational communities
> >>as they develop a proposal or consideralternatives. That is not what
> >>we want. We want finished, agreedproposals.  Paragraph 2 is much
> >>clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages"affected parties
> >>to participate in the operational community process forthe same of
> >>"consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but itdoes not
> >>completely close the door to the receipt of finished
> >>alternativeproposals where consensus is not possible. I really think
> >>that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 arearticulating separate
> >>models of response and we cannot allow the RFP tobe released with such
> >>a critical ambiguity in it. I also made a few minor changes, related
> >>to labeling IIA as Policy sourceand the second bullet point under IIB I also
> responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness.
> >>My point isthat various proposals might come up with different ways of
> >>excluding orseparating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can’t
> >>use theexisting method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is
> >>simply askingthem to explain the implications of their changes for
> >>existing policyarrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this
> >>issue, because itsays almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B.
> >>So do weneed it at all? Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know
> >>what kind of a paralleluniverse the rest of you live in, but in the
> >>world I have become familiarwith as a social scientist, there is no
> >>"testing" of legal andinstitutional accountability arrangements. We
> >>can project or estimatebased on past experience, but that is all. If
> >>there are technical andoperational changes called for by a proposal,
> >>yes, we can talk aboutpre-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 otheraccountability mechanism is, is asking for the
> impossible. So
> >>I havealtered 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 CooperSent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PMTo:
> >>joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at icann.orgSubject: 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 freeto comment to us about transparency, completeness, etc. I
> >>think thatis true as a general matter, but that is not what we are
> >>asking forspecifically in this RFP.That is what we will ask for — from
> >>anyone who cares to answer — afterwe have the proposal components
> >>submitted (by December :)).So I removed that text. I also found the
> >>new first paragraph quite confusing — it said we areissuing this RFP
> >>“for consideration” by all parties, which makes itsound like we’re
> >>asking people to comment on the RFP itself, ratherthan submit
> >>proposals. So, I did some editing on the first twoparagraphs, and also
> >>tried to work in the good suggestion from Manalthat we re-emphasize
> >>that we will direct comments to the operationalcommunities where we
> >>can. Here is how the first two paragraphs read now: "The IANA
> >>Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
> >>(ICG)  is seekingcomplete formal responses to this Request for
> >>Proposals
> >>(RFP) from the“operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with
> >>direct operationalor service relationships with IANA; namely names,
> >>numbers, protocolparameters). Other interested and affected parties
> >>are stronglyencouraged to provide their inputs through open processes
> >>run by theseoperational communities.  Other parties may provide
> >>comments to theICG on particular aspects that may be covered by
> >>proposals that may beof significant interest to them, for review by
> >>the ICG as time andresources permit. The ICG will direct comments
> >>received from otherparties to the relevant operational communities as
> appropriate.
> >>During the development of their proposals, the operational
> >>communitiesare expected to consult and work with other affected
> >>parties;likewise, other affected parties are strongly encouraged
> >>toparticipate in community processes, as the ICG is requiring
> >>proposalsthat have consensus support from a broad range of stakeholder
> >>groups.” In section 0, I edited “change” to “address” in "Identify
> >>whichcategory 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 needelaboration, of
> >>just one sentence each, because they are not clear ontheir face:
> >>·Continuity of service requirements·Risks·Service integration aspects
> >>For example, “Risks” seems so vague that each community could write
> >>anovel about them and not be complete. What are we really looking
> >>forhere? 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 clarifythe operational vs impacted
> >>communities comment process... Also aquestion of whether testing
> >>should be limited to Section III - arethose the only changes
> >>contemplated that could impact stability andfunctionality? I think we
> >>are getting pretty close to a final draft... JoeOn 8/19/2014 11:05 AM,
> >>Milton L Mueller wrote:Paul:Done. It is uploaded as docx as version
> >>09. Also proposed someminor clarity changes to the preamble and added
> >>a comment respondingto Martin's nervousness. We can't have Martin being
> nervous.
> >>Milton L MuellerLaura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse
> >>UniversitySchool of Information
> >>Studieshttp://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 WilsonSent:
> >>Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:05 AMTo: ICGSubject: Re: [Internal-cg]
> >>Further RFP revision Milton, thanks for your comments on the "section 0"
> >>part.  thisadds some  needed clarity about the whole orientation of
> >>this
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >process. If you can, please make further edits to the version 8
> >documentlinked 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%2
> 5>20v0
> >8.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 RFPdocument,
> >
> >
> >
> >and will have a clean version available in Dropbox shortly.My intention
> >is to go run this document sequentially duringtonight's
> >
> >meeting, seeking ICG members' views and suggestions.Thanks, Paul.
> >
> >________________________________________________________________
> _______
> >_Pa ul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg at apnic.net>
> ><mailto:dg at apnic.net>http://www.apnic.net
> >    +61 7
> >
> >
> >
> >38583100 See you at APNIC 38!http://conference.apnic.net/38
> >
> >_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing
> >listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal
> >-cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg
> mailing
> >listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal
> >-cg  _______________________________________________Internal-cg
> mailing
> >listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal
> >-cg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing
> >listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal
> >-cg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Internal-cg mailing list
> >Internal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list