[Internal-cg] RFP subgroup

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Wed Aug 27 23:10:19 UTC 2014


I understand the purpose of the proposal, but I have a concern of a 
potential unintended side effect.  A stakeholder proposal input that 
comes to us related to one of the operational community proposals 
bypasses the dialog and consensus process of the relevant operational 
community.  That would then put us in a place of vetting a proposal 
element that had not been through the same process as the others.  Would 
it be appropriate to suggest that while stakeholder comments/input on 
proposal elements related to operational community proposals may be 
submitted to the ICG for consideration, they must also be submitted as 
an input to the relevant operational community proposal process? I can 
understand that stakeholders not naturally part of the operational 
communities may wish to have this as a way of making sure that their 
input is properly considered, but it should also be part of the 
consensus development in the appropriate operational community process.  
While the ICG could refer the comment into the appropriate operational 
community process, it would lose the potency of the arguments and 
context that stakeholder input author could offer in support of the 
positions as part of the community consensus process.  Finally there had 
been a concern that such an open ended call could strain our limited 
bandwidth and that it may be hard for us to factor individual input 
against consensus processes.  While this is only a potential concern, it 
is serious if it arises.

Do you have any thoughts on the above?

On 8/27/2014 4:48 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
> 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,
> Jean-Jacques.
> ----- 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.
> Jean-Jacques.
> ----- 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.
> thanks.
> Paul.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list