[Internal-cg] RFP subgroup

Thu Aug 28 15:19:13 UTC 2014

Me too.
Alissa

On 8/28/14, 7:26 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs at dyalog.net> wrote:

>I agree with Milton's latest proposed modification.
>Best regards,
>Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>----- 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
>> 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