[Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
pwilson at apnic.net
Wed Aug 27 10:57:41 UTC 2014
It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled?
It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits.
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
See you at APNIC 38! http://conference.apnic.net/38
On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
> 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
>> at consensus...
> 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
> interested parties."
>> 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
More information about the Internal-cg