<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>There arae legal and procedural problem in the darft</div><div>I proposed amendments and do not understand nor convinced why some of you even do not wish to look at those relevant amendments as contained in REV 2 which I sent to you before</div>
<div>TKS</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-08-29 18:18 GMT+02:00 Adiel Akplogan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:adiel@afrinic.net" target="_blank">adiel@afrinic.net</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">It works for me as well.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
- a.<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Aug 28, 2014, at 19:19 PM, Alissa Cooper <<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Me too.<br>
> Alissa<br>
><br>
> On 8/28/14, 7:26 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <<a href="mailto:jjs@dyalog.net">jjs@dyalog.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> I agree with Milton's latest proposed modification.<br>
>> Best regards,<br>
>> Jean-Jacques.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ----- Mail original -----<br>
>> De: "Milton L Mueller" <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>><br>
>> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <<a href="mailto:jjs@dyalog.net">jjs@dyalog.net</a>>, "Paul Wilson"<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:pwilson@apnic.net">pwilson@apnic.net</a>><br>
>> Cc: <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</a>, "Alissa Cooper" <<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>>, "joseph<br>
>> alhadeff" <<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>><br>
>> Envoyé: Jeudi 28 Août 2014 15:28:12<br>
>> Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup<br>
>><br>
>> As expressed on the call and in my own proposed modification, I do not<br>
>> oppose the sentiment behind JJ's modification.<br>
>> However, in some ways this wording undercuts the more liberal approach to<br>
>> input by saying that we "do not expect full proposals from<br>
>> non-operational communities." To my mind, this creates an unwanted<br>
>> dichotomy between the operational community proposal development process<br>
>> and "everyone else," when what we want is for op and non-operational<br>
>> communities to work together on a proposal.<br>
>><br>
>> Thus I could support this change only if the first clause is sawed off,<br>
>> to read:<br>
>><br>
>> "This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational<br>
>> communities."<br>
>><br>
>> Addressing Joe's concerns about our capacity, etc. I am not worried.<br>
>> While I strongly agree with him that we do not want to encourage groups<br>
>> to go off into their own silos and come up with a proposal in isolation<br>
>> (and I can think of two groups that have a tendency to do that), I think<br>
>> the RFP already puts major emphasis on widespread support for proposals.<br>
>> If anyone "goes silo" they should be prepared for the fact that their<br>
>> ideas will not be part of the final package unless they can show that<br>
>> they have support outside their silo and made a serious effort to gain<br>
>> support from the other parts of the community making a proposal. Also, I<br>
>> do not think we are going to get dozens of actual proposals.<br>
>><br>
>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>> From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:<a href="mailto:jjs@dyalog.net">jjs@dyalog.net</a>]<br>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:48 PM<br>
>>> To: Paul Wilson<br>
>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</a>; Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller; joseph<br>
>>> alhadeff<br>
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup<br>
>>><br>
>>> Dear Colleagues,<br>
>>><br>
>>> following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a<br>
>>> friendly<br>
>>> amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first<br>
>>> paragraph of<br>
>>> the draft RFP:<br>
>>><br>
>>> "Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational<br>
>>> communities,<br>
>>> this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational<br>
>>> communities."<br>
>>><br>
>>> With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of<br>
>>> the<br>
>>> draft RFP.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Best regards,<br>
>>> Jean-Jacques.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> ----- Mail original -----<br>
>>> De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <<a href="mailto:jjs@dyalog.net">jjs@dyalog.net</a>><br>
>>> À: "Paul Wilson" <<a href="mailto:pwilson@apnic.net">pwilson@apnic.net</a>><br>
>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</a>, "Alissa Cooper" <<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>>, "Milton<br>
>>> L<br>
>>> Mueller" <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>>, "joseph alhadeff"<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>><br>
>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35<br>
>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup<br>
>>><br>
>>> If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay<br>
>>> until this<br>
>>> Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or propose a<br>
>>> friendly amendment. Thanks.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Jean-Jacques.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> ----- Mail original -----<br>
>>> De: "Paul Wilson" <<a href="mailto:pwilson@apnic.net">pwilson@apnic.net</a>><br>
>>> À: "Alissa Cooper" <<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>>, "Milton L Mueller"<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>>,<br>
>>> "joseph alhadeff" <<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>><br>
>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:internal-cg@icann.org">internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>>> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41<br>
>>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> It works for me too. Can we have a new revision of the document, with<br>
>>> Joe’s<br>
>>> and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled?<br>
>>><br>
>>> It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits.<br>
>>><br>
>>> thanks.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Paul.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _________________________________________________________________<br>
>>> _______<br>
>>> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <<a href="mailto:dg@apnic.net">dg@apnic.net</a>><br>
>>> <a href="http://www.apnic.net" target="_blank">http://www.apnic.net</a> <a href="tel:%2B61%207%203858%203100" value="+61738583100">+61 7 3858 3100</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> See you at APNIC 38! <a href="http://conference.apnic.net/38" target="_blank">http://conference.apnic.net/38</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <<a href="mailto:alissa@cooperw.in">alissa@cooperw.in</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <<a href="mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com">joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com</a>><br>
>>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> I'm fine with Milton's language,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> though I want to make sure that while operational communities are<br>
>>>>> required to be inclusive and have serious review of all comments they<br>
>>>>> are also able to manage a process to arrive at consensus...<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within<br>
>>>> each process, but that each proposal document "An assessment of the<br>
>>>> level of consensus behind your community’s proposal, including a<br>
>>>> description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the last<br>
>>>> sentence of the RFP explains.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> The operational community's knowledge of functional requirements does<br>
>>>>> give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions related to those<br>
>>>>> functional requirements... There may be more relevance of stakeholder<br>
>>>>> comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and<br>
>>>>> accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups We cannot require<br>
>>>>> processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to<br>
>>>>> endanger the ability to reach conclusion. All groups have tight time<br>
>>>>> frames to work under.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a<br>
>>>> broad consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s<br>
>>>> change is accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your<br>
>>>> concern? Perhaps “The operational communities are expected to convene<br>
>>>> processes that aim to produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus<br>
>>>> of support from all interested parties."<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and<br>
>>>>> stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying<br>
>>>>> exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> "The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal<br>
>>>> that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself.<br>
>>> The ICG will then put<br>
>>>> this<br>
>>>> proposal up for public comment involving a<br>
>>> reasonable period of time for<br>
>>>> reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and<br>
>>> preparing supportive or critica<br>
>>>> l<br>
>>>> comments. The ICG will then review these comments<br>
>>> and determine whether<br>
>>>> modifications are required. If no modifications are<br>
>>> needed, and the<br>
>>>> coordination group agrees, the proposal will be<br>
>>> submitted to NTIA.”<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns<br>
>>>> the stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could<br>
>>>> point readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Alissa<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Joe<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:<br>
>>>>>>> The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests<br>
>>>>>>> “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct<br>
>>>>>>> operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with<br>
>>>>>>> names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to<br>
>>>>>>> develop complete formal responses to this RFP.<br>
>>>>>> I do like your approach Milton even better.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how?<br>
>>>>>> I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various<br>
>>>>>> stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than<br>
>>>>>> after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already<br>
>>>>>> did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about<br>
>>>>>> adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner<br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
<br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>