[Internal-cg] RFP subgroup

[Lynn St.Amour]

All,

I like Milton's approach,  it is clean, there are minimal changes from the current largely supported state, and it is quite easily understood.   

Which brings another thought to mind -- shouldn't we translate this RFP in order to aid outreach/engagement; and are we accepting proposals in other languages or only in English?  Apologies If I missed this while I was out.

Finally, one minor point mentioned in the IAB/technical community --  in Section IV, can we consider splitting that into two sections; one for transition implications, and the other for satisfaction of NTIA criteria, they are obviously different.

Best,
Lynn

On Aug 26, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Joe
> I think this is too complicated and too big a deviation from our earlier approach.
> I still think the solution to JJ’s concerns is to be found in the notion of the operational communities as convenors of proposal development processes that must include other interested parties.
>  
> I think all we need to do is alter the following sentence in the way I suggest below:
>  
> Original sentence:
>  
> The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) seeks complete formal responses to this RFP from the “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters). 
>  
> Proposed modification:
>  
> 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.
>  
> This is a simpler change, does not alter the basic assumptions of our charter, but also makes it clear that the operational communities are responsible for convening processes that, according to other language that is already in the RFP,
>  
> Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad consensus of support from all interested parties.  During the development of their proposals, the operational communities are requested to consult and work with other affected parties. Likewise, in order to help the ICG maintain its light coordination role, all other affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate in community processes.
> …
> Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in developing their responses…. Etc.
>  
>  
> Milton L Mueller
> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>  
>  
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:01 AM
> To: internal-cg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
>  
> So here's a shot at compromise text...
> On 8/26/2014 8:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> I want to be on it.
>  
> Milton L Mueller
> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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