[Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision

Sat Aug 23 19:22:05 UTC 2014

That's an acceptable comproimse.
On 8/23/2014 11:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> I oppose having a public comment period on the RFP. The RFP is not the kind of document for which general public comments make sense.
> I think we can use the less formal network model of interaction instead; i.e., individual ICG members share the penultimate draft with the people they represent and get some reaction over the next few days.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
>> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 5:44 PM
>> To: Milton L Mueller; joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
>>
>> Milton, all,
>>
>> Attached is a v12 that tries to clarify further what the ICG is requesting and how
>> comments can be provided (Dropbox seems to be having an outage, I will upload
>> later). I also carried forward some of Manal’s edits and edited Section IV based
>> on Narelle’s email.
>>
>> There is one issue that Joe has raised that I don’t think needs to be explained in
>> the RFP document itself but that we do need to decide about, which is whether
>> we will solicit public comments about the contents of the RFP. Here is my
>> assessment of that question:
>>
>> On the one hand, I feel like we have some independent authority here. If we ask
>> for comments on the RFP and get comments back that say “half of the things
>> you’re asking for are unnecessary,” I don’t think we should necessarily take
>> them out. We were selected to deliver something credible to NTIA and I think
>> it’s our decision as to what parts add up to credibility.
>>
>> On the other hand, someone might point out things that we missed. Of course
>> any of the communities could and should provide additional information they
>> think is appropriate in their proposal components — it’s not like we’re going to
>> ignore some section of a proposal document we receive because we didn’t
>> explicitly ask for it. We already ask for as much explanatory material as they
>> want to give. So I’m not sure those kinds of comments will add a lot of value
>> either.
>>
>> Personally, I’m in a situation where I’m receiving pointed emails from IETF folks
>> who are wondering why the RFP hasn’t been published yet so they can align their
>> work with the RFP. So I’m sensitive to getting something out the door ASAP. And
>> I do not think people will be pleased if we publish the RFP on, say, next Thursday
>> with a 1-week comment period that overlaps almost entirely with people’s
>> travel to and participation in the IGF.
>>
>> So my opinion is that a specific public comment period on the contents of the
>> RFP is not strictly necessary. But, if others think it is, perhaps we could publish
>> the draft next week and circulate it to the communities, with the caveat that
>> people can send comments about the RFP content itself to icg-forum at icann.org
>> with a deadline in the second week of September, and we may choose to update
>> the RFP based on those comments after that. I think the former is preferable
>> though.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>>
>> On 8/22/14, 1:07 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Joe,
>>> Here I think we need to distinguish between actual proposals, which the
>>> RFP solicits and attempts to structure, and public comments on the
>>> proposal(s) that
>>> we put together.
>>>
>>> E.g., when you talk about a group addressing “a specific issue of
>>> interest such as accountability”, it sounds to me like you are talking
>>> about people reacting  to specific proposals that have actually been
>>> made. In that case, they can review the proposals and assess the
>>> adequacy with which they address, say, the accountability issue, and
>>> submit comments during the public comment period accordingly.
>>>
>>>
>>> What I fear is that your current language will encourage groups to
>>> inundate the ICG with comments like “We think accountability is
>>> important and ICANN needs  more of it” BEFORE any proposals have
>>> actually been made – as if WE were the ones developing the proposal. We
>>> cannot do anything with such comments. Either people concoct and
>>> propose specific institutional, legal and operational changes that
>>> enhance accountability  (in which case they are helping to develop a
>>> proposal) or they are just expressing opinions, which is only helpful
>>> to us if these opinions are about specific proposals that we have
>>> before us.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you understand my concern here?
>>> --MM
>>>
>>> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
>>> [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org]
>>> On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff
>>> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 3:41 PM
>>> To: internal-cg at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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>
>>> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu> wrote:  -----Original Message-----From: Milton
>>> L
>>> MuellerSent: Friday, August 22, 2014 11:04 AMTo: 'Alissa Cooper';
>>> internal-cg at icann.orgSubject: 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 containlanguage that cover
>>> the same topic, but provide different meanings andthus open to door to
>>> conflicting interpretations that could cause ustrouble. We need to
>>> choose one or the other of the meanings and deletethe other.  Here is an
>> exegesis:
>>> >From the middle of paragraph 1: "Other parties may provide comments to
>>>> the ICG on particular aspects thatmay 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 directcomments received from other
>>>> parties to the relevant operationalcommunities as appropriate."
>>>> Paragraph 2:  "During the development of their proposals, the
>>>> operational communitiesare expected to consult and work with other
>>>> affected parties; likewise,other affected parties are strongly
>>>> encouraged to participate incommunity processes, as the ICG is
>>>> requiring proposals that haveconsensus support from a broad range of
>>>> stakeholder groups." My view is that the material from paragraph 1
>>>> must be deleted so as tonot confuse people and undermine the message
>>>> in paragraph 2. As it is written now, the material in paragraph 1
>>>> invites parties toprovide "comments" to us on "proposals" (note the
>>>> _plural_ form) that arebeing considered by the operational
>>>> communities. To me, this seems toinvite people to provide ongoing
>>>> commentary on the ideas being consideredby the operational communities
>>>> as they develop a proposal or consideralternatives. That is not what
>>>> we want. We want finished, agreedproposals.  Paragraph 2 is much
>>>> clearer about what we want. It "strongly encourages"affected parties
>>>> to participate in the operational community process forthe same of
>>>> "consensus support from a broad range of...groups," but itdoes not
>>>> completely close the door to the receipt of finished
>>>> alternativeproposals where consensus is not possible. I really think
>>>> that section of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 arearticulating separate
>>>> models of response and we cannot allow the RFP tobe released with such
>>>> a critical ambiguity in it. I also made a few minor changes, related
>>>> to labeling IIA as Policy sourceand the second bullet point under IIB I also
>> responded to Martin's comments about his nervousness.
>>>> My point isthat various proposals might come up with different ways of
>>>> excluding orseparating policy from IANA implementation. Since we can’t
>>>> use theexisting method (NTIA contract) to do so, this section is
>>>> simply askingthem to explain the implications of their changes for
>>>> existing policyarrangements. However, we may be able to finesse this
>>>> issue, because itsays almost the same thing as bullet point 2 in section II B.
>>>> So do weneed it at all? Finally, a word about "testing." I don't know
>>>> what kind of a paralleluniverse the rest of you live in, but in the
>>>> world I have become familiarwith as a social scientist, there is no
>>>> "testing" of legal andinstitutional accountability arrangements. We
>>>> can project or estimatebased on past experience, but that is all. If
>>>> there are technical andoperational changes called for by a proposal,
>>>> yes, we can talk aboutpre-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 otheraccountability mechanism is, is asking for the
>> impossible. So
>>>> I havealtered 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 CooperSent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:40 PMTo:
>>>> joseph alhadeff; internal-cg at icann.orgSubject: 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 freeto comment to us about transparency, completeness, etc. I
>>>> think thatis true as a general matter, but that is not what we are
>>>> asking forspecifically in this RFP.That is what we will ask for — from
>>>> anyone who cares to answer — afterwe have the proposal components
>>>> submitted (by December :)).So I removed that text. I also found the
>>>> new first paragraph quite confusing — it said we areissuing this RFP
>>>> “for consideration” by all parties, which makes itsound like we’re
>>>> asking people to comment on the RFP itself, ratherthan submit
>>>> proposals. So, I did some editing on the first twoparagraphs, and also
>>>> tried to work in the good suggestion from Manalthat we re-emphasize
>>>> that we will direct comments to the operationalcommunities where we
>>>> can. Here is how the first two paragraphs read now: "The IANA
>>>> Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
>>>> (ICG)  is seekingcomplete formal responses to this Request for
>>>> Proposals
>>>> (RFP) from the“operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with
>>>> direct operationalor service relationships with IANA; namely names,
>>>> numbers, protocolparameters). Other interested and affected parties
>>>> are stronglyencouraged to provide their inputs through open processes
>>>> run by theseoperational communities.  Other parties may provide
>>>> comments to theICG on particular aspects that may be covered by
>>>> proposals that may beof significant interest to them, for review by
>>>> the ICG as time andresources permit. The ICG will direct comments
>>>> received from otherparties to the relevant operational communities as
>> appropriate.
>>>> During the development of their proposals, the operational
>>>> communitiesare expected to consult and work with other affected
>>>> parties;likewise, other affected parties are strongly encouraged
>>>> toparticipate in community processes, as the ICG is requiring
>>>> proposalsthat have consensus support from a broad range of stakeholder
>>>> groups.” In section 0, I edited “change” to “address” in "Identify
>>>> whichcategory 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 needelaboration, of
>>>> just one sentence each, because they are not clear ontheir face:
>>>> ·Continuity of service requirements·Risks·Service integration aspects
>>>> For example, “Risks” seems so vague that each community could write
>>>> anovel about them and not be complete. What are we really looking
>>>> forhere? Thanks,Alissa On 8/19/14, 8:50 AM, "joseph alhadeff"
>>>> <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
>>>> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>wrote: I have uploaded v9(jha) with
>>>> a few suggested edits to further clarifythe operational vs impacted
>>>> communities comment process... Also aquestion of whether testing
>>>> should be limited to Section III - arethose the only changes
>>>> contemplated that could impact stability andfunctionality? I think we
>>>> are getting pretty close to a final draft... JoeOn 8/19/2014 11:05 AM,
>>>> Milton L Mueller wrote:Paul:Done. It is uploaded as docx as version
>>>> 09. Also proposed someminor clarity changes to the preamble and added
>>>> a comment respondingto Martin's nervousness. We can't have Martin being
>> nervous.
>>>> Milton L MuellerLaura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse
>>>> UniversitySchool of Information
>>>> Studieshttp://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 WilsonSent:
>>>> Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:05 AMTo: ICGSubject: Re: [Internal-cg]
>>>> Further RFP revision Milton, thanks for your comments on the "section 0"
>>>> part.  thisadds some  needed clarity about the whole orientation of
>>>> this
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> process. If you can, please make further edits to the version 8
>>> documentlinked below. Paul.     On 19 Aug 2014, at 9:30 pm, Paul Wilson
>>> <pwilson at apnic.net> <mailto: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%
>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d2izh5jobgyu48/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%2
>> 5>20v0
>>> 8.docx Paul     On 19 Aug 2014, at 8:52 pm, Paul Wilson
>>> <pwilson at apnic.net> <mailto:pwilson at apnic.net> wrote: Dear all, I am in
>>> the process of reconciling all inputs on the latest RFPdocument,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and will have a clean version available in Dropbox shortly.My intention
>>> is to go run this document sequentially duringtonight's
>>>
>>> meeting, seeking ICG members' views and suggestions.Thanks, Paul.
>>>
>>> ________________________________________________________________
>> _______
>>> _Pa ul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg at apnic.net>
>>> <mailto:dg at apnic.net>http://www.apnic.net
>>>     +61 7
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 38583100 See you at APNIC 38!http://conference.apnic.net/38
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing
>>> listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal
>>> -cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg
>> mailing
>>> listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal
>>> -cg  _______________________________________________Internal-cg
>> mailing
>>> listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal
>>> -cg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing
>>> listInternal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal
>>> -cg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg