[Internal-cg] RES: RFP subgroup

Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br
Wed Aug 27 21:38:21 UTC 2014

Dear all,

In line with the comments I made during our second ICG call on August 19,  I also fully support Jean-Jacques proposal.

Best regards,


Jandyr Santos Jr
Head of the Information Society Division
Department of Scientific and Technological Themes
Ministry of External Relations
Tel: 55-61-2030-8469/8472
Fax: 55-61-2030-6613

-----Mensagem original-----
De: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] Em nome de Kavouss Arasteh
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 27 de agosto de 2014 18:32
Para: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
Cc: Coordination Group
Assunto: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup

Dear Allé,
All suggestions are friedly .There is no unfriedly suggestions We should look into the merit of proposal and not on the source.
I fully agree with the proposal

2014-08-27 22:48 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net>:

	Dear Colleagues,
	following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a friendly amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the draft RFP:
	"Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational
	communities, this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
	With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of the draft RFP.
	Best regards,
	----- Mail original -----
	De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
	À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>
	Cc: internal-cg at icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
	Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35
	Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
	If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a friendly amendment. Thanks.
	----- Mail original -----
	De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>
	À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
	Cc: internal-cg at icann.org
	Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41
	Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
	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 <tel:%2B61%207%203858%203100> 
	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
	Internal-cg mailing list
	Internal-cg at icann.org
	Internal-cg mailing list
	Internal-cg at icann.org

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list