[Internal-cg] RFP subgroup

Paul Wilson 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	
> this	
> proposal	up	for	public	comment	involving a	reasonable	period	of	time	for	
> reviewing	the	draft	proposal,	analyzing	and	preparing	supportive	or	critica
> l	
> 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.
> Alissa
>> Joe
>> 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 mailing list