[Internal-cg] RFP subgroup

Jari Arkko jari.arkko at piuha.net
Fri Aug 29 12:09:19 UTC 2014

Works for me as well. Thank you, all.


On 28 Aug 2014, at 18:19, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140829/7deca1b4/signature.asc>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list