[Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision

[Martin Boyle]

Hi all,

Sorry about the delay in responding on this:  a time-zone problem associated with a public holiday weekend.

I agree that this is very close, so thanks to all who've done so much to pull together the disparate comments and editing:  a job well done.  

However, I am struggling in a couple of places where I don't really understand the intention of the wording - cross-referencing with the current NTIA contract and on the element of risks and "new service integration" (we should not be extending the services) most notably.

But my main concern remains on the interface between the policy and IANA:  it feels to me that we are almost encouraging people to solve non-IANA transition problems using this RFP.  I've made suggested edits to the second bullet under II.b and under section III.

I'd make one editorial plea (as I tried to work out which bits fell within which subdivisions):  could we have a go at some coherence in numbering.  My heart sank as I came to the second section 0!

I've posted to dropbox, but also attached my marked-up version.

Cheers

Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: 23 August 2014 15:32
To: Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision

Alissa, all
I think the RFP is just about good to go. I uncovered some minor editorial changes: 

1. first sentence of p. 3: "The ICG encourage each community " should be "The ICG encourages each community"

2. On p. 3 need link to IANA functions contract

3. Delete the second "not" from the second bullet point under II.B
       •	If not all policy sources identified in Section II.A are not affected, identify which ones are affected.

4. Last section has some formatting issues. The bullet point about replacing NTIA with governments has been smushed into the prior point about maintaining the openness of the Internet. It should be a separate bullet point. The last bullet in the list, which asks them to explain how they meet the NTIA criteria, should not be a bullet point but a normal sentence. After the format corrections, it should look like this:

Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal must meet the following five requirements:

  •	Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
  •	Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
  •	Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services;
  •	Maintain the openness of the Internet. 
  •	The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution. 

This section should explain how your community’s proposal meets these requirements and how its respond to the global interest in the IANA function.

I made all these (hopefully uncontroversial) edits and renumbered to "lucky" v13, and uploaded to Dropbox

Milton L Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IANA Transition RFP v13 +MB.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 40757 bytes
Desc: IANA Transition RFP v13 +MB.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140825/bf628e0e/IANATransitionRFPv13MB.docx>