[Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision

Fri Aug 22 19:41:21 UTC 2014

Milton:

I have been a strong proponent of making sure that proposals are 
developed only in the communities, but I am not convinced that those 
processes will necessarily be accessible beyond the normal members of 
and participants to that community.  If there is a specific issue of 
interest, such as accountability, and there is a specific opinion on 
that I think we need to be open to those comments.  We can try to make 
the timing of more general stakeholder comments coincide with the 
publication of the proposal for comments, but we need a section that 
better addresses how we are open to comments outside of the drafting 
communities and how and when they can participate in our process.

Joe
On 8/22/2014 3:19 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140822/0145c9c6/attachment.html>