[Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision

Fri Aug 22 19:19:18 UTC 2014

Forwarding on behalf of Milton who is having list email issues ...

On 8/22/14, 11:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Milton L Mueller
>Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AM
>To: 'Alissa Cooper'; internal-cg at icann.org
>Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision
>
>Alas, there are still some unresolved issues here.
>
>I still have to insist that the first and second paragraphs contain
>language that cover the same topic, but provide different meanings and
>thus open to door to conflicting interpretations that could cause us
>trouble. We need to choose one or the other of the meanings and delete
>the other. 
>
>Here is an exegesis:
>
>From the middle of paragraph 1:
>
>"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."
>
>Paragraph 2: 
>
>"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."
>
>My view is that the material from paragraph 1 must be deleted so as to
>not confuse people and undermine the message in paragraph 2.
>
>As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1 invites parties to
>provide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the _plural_ form) that are
>being considered by the operational communities. To me, this seems to
>invite people to provide ongoing commentary on the ideas being considered
>by the operational communities as they develop a proposal or consider
>alternatives. That is not what we want. We want finished, agreed
>proposals. 
>
>Paragraph 2 is much clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages"
>affected parties to participate in the operational community process for
>the same of "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but it
>does not completely close the door to the receipt of finished alternative
>proposals where consensus is not possible.
>
>I really think that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 are
>articulating separate models of response and we cannot allow the RFP to
>be released with such a critical ambiguity in it.
>
>I also made a few minor changes, related to labeling IIA as Policy source
>and the second bullet point under IIB
>
>I also responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness. My point is
>that various proposals might come up with different ways of excluding or
>separating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can’t use the
>existing method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is simply asking
>them to explain the implications of their changes for existing policy
>arrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this issue, because it
>says almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B. So do we
>need it at all?
>
>Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know what kind of a parallel
>universe the rest of you live in, but in the world I have become familiar
>with as a social scientist, there is no "testing" of legal and
>institutional accountability arrangements. We can project or estimate
>based on past experience, but that is all. If there are technical and
>operational changes called for by a proposal, yes, we can talk about
>pre-testing them in some kind of laboratory set up. But asking people to
>"test" what will happen if the NTIA is not there and some other
>accountability mechanism is, is asking for the impossible. So I have
>altered the language to deal with this.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org]
>> On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
>> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PM
>> To: joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Further RFP revision
>> 
>> 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 v11.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 32599 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140822/ee28a69b/IANATransitionRFPv11.docx>