[Internal-cg] RFP subgroup

[Jari Arkko]

> The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP.

I do like your approach Milton even better.

> Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how?

I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner that we have done so far. 

> I'm also don't think that my language changes the charter as only operational communities submit proposals…

Yes, excellent. And this is true of both of the proposals.

> I still think we need to address the ability of stakeholders to directly comment to us in the development or on the unitary proposal. That is factual.

The charter does require the ICG to perform both assessment of non-operational community input and have a public comment period so that we can determine broad support. As a result, I think it is fine to add something about broad stakeholder input to the RFP. I’m though inclined to go with Milton’s minimal approach to text changes.

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140826/0ea02dc3/signature.asc>