[Internal-cg] Redraft of RFP

Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net
Mon Jul 28 06:31:45 UTC 2014

Thanks Manal,

> Many thanks Paul for the redraft and for triggering this discussion ..
> I don't have editorial comments yet but I have a couple of
> questions/general comments:
> - How many categories of communities are we talking about, 2? 'customer
> communities of IANA' and 'others'? I can see that we keep referring to
> 'communities', 'customer communities of IANA', 'all communities of
> interest', 'other parties with specific interest', which I believe is a
> bit confusing to anyone who was not part of the discussions ..

In my mind: 

"Customer Communities" are 3: Protocols, Numbers, and Names (with a possible subdivision of Names into CC and G as proposed)
"Communities of Interest" are those represented on the ICG, so including RSSAC, GAC, etc
"Other parties" are those outside these groups.

But these could/should be better defined.

> - I think the draft is a bit sophisticated, focusing on the 3 'customer
> communities of IANA' .. should we split the draft into 2 in order not to
> confuse everyone with the specific requirements addressed to the 3
> identified IANA customers?

It’s possibile, but your concern could be addressed by a clearer wording/structure of the one document.

> - Regarding the 3 customer communities of IANA, I believe we are
> basically asking for 3 things: 
> 	1. Status Quo of current services (guided by the requested
> information elements)
> 	2. Transition proposal (which I don't see explicitly requested
> in this draft)
> 	3. Foreseen implications of the transition, on the current
> services, in light of the submitted proposal 
> Is my understanding accurate? 

Sorry this was not clear.  My fault.

The “Proposal” was intended to be contained within the response, so that in every section there would be a description of Status Quo and also the “new”, post-transition situation.  This sense was lost in the edit process I’m afraid, and certainly needs to be clarified.

> - Generally speaking, can proposals be as long as the submitter wishes?
> With the tight timeframe we have, should we be guided by NETmundial
> (there was a limit on the size of submissions) and encourage concise
> (not sure if this is the right word) proposals? Or are we confident,
> having already encouraged submissions through the relevant communities?

You are probably correct, and we could provide such guidance.

That said, I’ve felt that the main issue/challenge we will face is not so much of the length of the proposals we receive, but the possibility of very divergent proposals; and hence my emphasis on detailed structure which attempts to keep the proposals "in line”.  

> - Finally, what is the deadline for finalizing this draft ..

I believe our initial intent was to release it by the end of July, which gives a mere 3 days to complete.


> @Russ, 
> I fully agree that ICG should not be accepting or rejecting proposals ..
> Unless the intention here is that communities may include distinct
> alternative options, all equally satisfactory to them, where ICG may
> then choose from the submitted alternatives based on workability and
> compatibility with the different proposals submitted by other
> communities .. 
> Just thinking out loud ..
> Kind Regards
> --Manal  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:28 PM
> To: Paul Wilson
> Cc: ICG Internal
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Redraft of RFP
> Paul:
> I have several small concerns, but I am _very_ worried about one
> sentence.  I want to raise that first.  Maybe that resolution will sort
> my smaller concerns too.
> I am troubled by the statement, "Where possible and appropriate,distinct
> alternative options should be identified".  I  don't want the ICG
> discussing alternatives.  I am certain that we do not want the ICG
> accepting or rejecting alternatives.
> Maybe I am misunderstanding your intent.
> Russ
> On Jul 25, 2014, at 12:03 AM, Paul Wilson wrote:
>> Thanks to comments from a few of you, here's a further draft of the
> RFP.
>> My feeling is that a very structured approach is needed, and I hope
> that we can gather all the needed information in this way.  From the IP
> addressing community, I think we could provide a detailed and complete
> response in this format, but other will need to be able to do so too.  
>> I hope this is useful.
>> Paul.
>> <Proposal Requirements v5.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> 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