[Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
jjs at dyalog.net
Thu Aug 28 14:26:23 UTC 2014
I agree with Milton's latest proposed modification.
----- Mail original -----
De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>
Cc: internal-cg at icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
Envoyé: Jeudi 28 Août 2014 15:28:12
Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
As expressed on the call and in my own proposed modification, I do not oppose the sentiment behind JJ's modification.
However, in some ways this wording undercuts the more liberal approach to input by saying that we "do not expect full proposals from non-operational communities." To my mind, this creates an unwanted dichotomy between the operational community proposal development process and "everyone else," when what we want is for op and non-operational communities to work together on a proposal.
Thus I could support this change only if the first clause is sawed off, to read:
"This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational communities."
Addressing Joe's concerns about our capacity, etc. I am not worried. While I strongly agree with him that we do not want to encourage groups to go off into their own silos and come up with a proposal in isolation (and I can think of two groups that have a tendency to do that), I think the RFP already puts major emphasis on widespread support for proposals. If anyone "goes silo" they should be prepared for the fact that their ideas will not be part of the final package unless they can show that they have support outside their silo and made a serious effort to gain support from the other parts of the community making a proposal. Also, I do not think we are going to get dozens of actual proposals.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:48 PM
> To: Paul Wilson
> Cc: internal-cg at icann.org; Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller; joseph alhadeff
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
> 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
> 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
> 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>
> >> 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
More information about the Internal-cg