[Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
alissa at cooperw.in
Tue Aug 26 17:31:05 UTC 2014
On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
>I'm fine with Milton's language,
Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
>though I want to make sure that while
>operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious
>review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive
To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each
process, but that each proposal document "An
assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal,
including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the
last sentence of the RFP explains.
>The operational community's knowledge of functional
>requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions
>related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance
>of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and
>accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require
>processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to
>endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time
>frames to work under.
The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad
consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is
accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern? Perhaps
“The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim to
produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all
>I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and
>stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying
>exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.
This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
"The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal
that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put
proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for
reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critica
comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether
modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the
coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.”
I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the
stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point
readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
>On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>> 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.
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg