[Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Aug 25 15:17:31 UTC 2014
dEAR Alissa, Dear All,
Please kindly advise when we stop revising and revising.
There is no point to to to 100% perfection.
We are about good
Please publish final draft accepting all changes for last minutes
2014-08-25 14:56 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:
> The wording as currently amended goes like this:
> • If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected,
> identify which ones are affected and explain in what way.
> This is fine with me. It does not "encourage" any particular response or
> attitude, it simply recognizes that there could be effects on policy
> processes that need to be taken into account. So many changes have been
> made that I cannot tell which ones are yours, so if the above represents
> your preferred wording I am fine with it.
> The other section that affected your nerves was this:
> "If your community’s proposal carries any implications for the interface
> between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements described in
> Section II.A, those implications should be described here."
> Again, this wording is fine with me. It recognizes that there could be
> implications for the interface between IANA and existing policy
> arrangements, and asks in a neutral way to describe those implications.
> I also agree with your change of "may" to "should" regarding references to
> the IANA contract
> Milton L Mueller
> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
> > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:36 AM
> > To: Milton L Mueller; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at icann.org
> > Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
> > Hi all,
> > Sorry about the delay in responding on this: a time-zone problem
> > with a public holiday weekend.
> > I agree that this is very close, so thanks to all who've done so much to
> > 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
> > NTIA contract and on the element of risks and "new service integration"
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > the NTIA criteria, should not be a bullet point but a normal sentence.
> > 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
> > • 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
> > 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
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg