[Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision

[Martin Boyle]

Thank you kind sir:  that addresses my main concerns.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 25 Aug 2014, at 13:57, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> Martin
> The wording as currently amended goes like this: 
> 
>     • If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, identify which ones are affected and explain in what way.
> 
> This is fine with me. It does not "encourage" any particular response or attitude, it simply recognizes that there could be effects on policy processes that need to be taken into account. So many changes have been made that I cannot tell which ones are yours, so if the above represents your preferred wording I am fine with it. 
> 
> The other section that affected your nerves was this:
> 
> "If your community’s proposal carries any implications for  the interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A, those implications should be described here."
> 
> Again, this wording is fine with me. It recognizes that there could be implications for the interface between IANA and existing policy arrangements, and asks in a neutral way to describe those implications. 
> 
> I also agree with your change of "may" to "should" regarding references to the IANA contract
> 
> 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: Martin Boyle [mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
>> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 7:36 AM
>> To: Milton L Mueller; Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at icann.org
>> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Sorry about the delay in responding on this:  a time-zone problem associated
>> with a public holiday weekend.
>> 
>> I agree that this is very close, so thanks to all who've done so much to pull
>> together the disparate comments and editing:  a job well done.
>> 
>> However, I am struggling in a couple of places where I don't really
>> understand the intention of the wording - cross-referencing with the current
>> NTIA contract and on the element of risks and "new service integration" (we
>> should not be extending the services) most notably.
>> 
>> But my main concern remains on the interface between the policy and IANA:
>> it feels to me that we are almost encouraging people to solve non-IANA
>> transition problems using this RFP.  I've made suggested edits to the second
>> bullet under II.b and under section III.
>> 
>> I'd make one editorial plea (as I tried to work out which bits fell within which
>> subdivisions):  could we have a go at some coherence in numbering.  My
>> heart sank as I came to the second section 0!
>> 
>> I've posted to dropbox, but also attached my marked-up version.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-
>> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
>> Sent: 23 August 2014 15:32
>> To: Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision
>> 
>> Alissa, all
>> I think the RFP is just about good to go. I uncovered some minor editorial
>> changes:
>> 
>> 1. first sentence of p. 3: "The ICG encourage each community " should be
>> "The ICG encourages each community"
>> 
>> 2. On p. 3 need link to IANA functions contract
>> 
>> 3. Delete the second "not" from the second bullet point under II.B
>>       •    If not all policy sources identified in Section II.A are not affected,
>> identify which ones are affected.
>> 
>> 4. Last section has some formatting issues. The bullet point about replacing
>> NTIA with governments has been smushed into the prior point about
>> maintaining the openness of the Internet. It should be a separate bullet
>> point. The last bullet in the list, which asks them to explain how they meet
>> the NTIA criteria, should not be a bullet point but a normal sentence. After
>> the format corrections, it should look like this:
>> 
>> Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal must meet the
>> following five requirements:
>> 
>>  •    Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
>>  •    Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
>>  •    Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and
>> partners of the IANA services;
>>  •    Maintain the openness of the Internet.
>>  •    The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led
>> or an inter-governmental organization solution.
>> 
>> This section should explain how your community’s proposal meets these
>> requirements and how its respond to the global interest in the IANA
>> function.
>> 
>> I made all these (hopefully uncontroversial) edits and renumbered to "lucky"
>> v13, and uploaded to Dropbox
>> 
>> Milton L Mueller
>> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>> Internet Governance Project
>> http://internetgovernance.org
>