[Internal-cg] Further RFP revision

Fri Aug 22 00:40:25 UTC 2014

I took one more stab at this — v10 attached and uploaded.

There was some new text in v09(jha) about how people should feel free to
comment to us about transparency, completeness, etc. I think that is true
as a general matter, but that is not what we are asking for specifically
in this RFP. That is what we will ask for — from anyone who cares to
answer — after we have the proposal components submitted (by December :)).
So I removed that text.

I also found the new first paragraph quite confusing — it said we are
issuing this RFP “for consideration” by all parties, which makes it sound
like we’re asking people to comment on the RFP itself, rather than submit
proposals. So, I did some editing on the first two paragraphs, and also
tried to work in the good suggestion from Manal that we re-emphasize that
we will direct comments to the operational communities where we can. Here
is how the first two paragraphs read now:

"The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)  is seeking
complete formal responses to this Request for Proposals (RFP) from the
“operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or
service relationships with IANA; namely names, numbers, protocol
parameters). Other interested and affected parties are strongly encouraged
to provide their inputs through open processes run by these operational
communities.  Other parties may provide comments to the ICG on particular
aspects that may be covered by proposals that may be of significant
interest to them, for review by  the ICG as time and resources permit. The
ICG will direct comments received from other parties to the relevant
operational communities as appropriate.

During the development of their proposals, the operational communities are
expected to consult and work with other affected parties; likewise, other
affected parties are strongly encouraged to participate in community
processes, as the ICG is requiring proposals that have consensus support
from a broad range of stakeholder groups.”

In section 0, I edited “change” to “address” in "Identify which category
of the IANA functions this submission proposes to change” since some
communities might propose no changes.

In section 4 I still think there are three bullet points that need
elaboration, of just one sentence each, because they are not clear on
their face:

·Continuity of service requirements
·Risks
·Service integration aspects

For example, “Risks” seems so vague that each community could write a
novel about them and not be complete. What are we really looking for here?

Thanks,
Alissa

On 8/19/14, 8:50 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:

>I have uploaded v9(jha) with a few suggested edits to further clarify
>the operational vs impacted communities comment process... Also a
>question of whether testing should be limited to Section III - are those
>the only changes contemplated that could impact stability and
>functionality?
>
>I think we are getting pretty close to a final draft...
>
>Joe
>On 8/19/2014 11:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> Paul:
>> Done. It is uploaded as docx as version 09. Also proposed some minor
>>clarity changes to the preamble and added a comment responding to
>>Martin's nervousness. We can't have Martin being nervous.
>>
>> Milton L Mueller
>> Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
>> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-
>>> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:05 AM
>>> To: ICG
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision
>>>
>>> Milton, thanks for your comments on the "section 0" part.  this adds
>>>some
>>> needed clarity about the whole orientation of this process.
>>>
>>> If you can, please make further edits to the version 8 document linked
>>> below.
>>>
>>> Paul.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 Aug 2014, at 9:30 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apologies for the delay, a new RFP revision is now online:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%
>>> 20v08.docx
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 19 Aug 2014, at 8:52 pm, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am in the process of reconciling all inputs on the latest RFP
>>>>>document,
>>> and will have a clean version available in Dropbox shortly.
>>>>> My intention is to go run this document sequentially during tonight's
>>> meeting, seeking ICG members' views and suggestions.
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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: IANA Transition RFP v10.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 37098 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140821/091e1463/IANATransitionRFPv10.docx>