[Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Mon Aug 25 22:54:47 UTC 2014

Many thanks Alissa for the clarification ..
Kind Regards

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 25, 2014, at 9:19 PM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> Hi Manal,
> I think this is still to be determined. My inclination would be to
> integrate the proposals first, but this is not a decision we have to make
> yet.
> Alissa
> On 8/24/14, 11:41 AM, "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>> I'm a bit confused with respect to input from 'interested parties' other
>> than the 'Operational Communities', after Dec. 31st ..
>> Are we going to allow comments on the individual proposals submitted or
>> integrate them first then call for comments on the unified version? Or is
>> it still to be decided?
>> Apologies if this has already been discussed and I overlooked the
>> decision ..
>> Kind Regards
>> --Manal  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
>> Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 9:22 PM
>> To: internal-cg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
>> That's an acceptable comproimse.
>> On 8/23/2014 11:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> 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/inter
>>>>> nal -cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg
>>>> mailing
>>>>> listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter
>>>>> nal -cg  _______________________________________________Internal-cg
>>>> mailing
>>>>> listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter
>>>>> nal
>>>>> -cg
>>>>> _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing
>>>>> listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/inter
>>>>> nal
>>>>> -cg
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>> Internal-cg at icann.orghttps://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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list