[Internal-cg] Further RFP revision

[Jari Arkko]

I think Alissa’s version is good enough to be shipped. 

> 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. 

I agree. Also, ultimately, the RFP is a request for the communities to send us proposals on how THEY think they should do things in the future. If we get the RFP somehow wrong (for instance by forgetting to request for some crucial piece of information), I’m hoping the communities are direct enough to tell us that!

Also, I have no doubt our understanding of the question we are asking is increasing as time goes by and the communities do their work. If we realise that we need to ask for some additional information, for instance, we can revise the RFP just as we can revise the charter and other documents in the ICG.

Jari

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140825/af0812bc/signature.asc>