[Internal-cg] FW: Further RFP revision

[Elise Gerich]

Hi all,

Speaking as the liaison from the IANA functions operator,  please note that
many places in the existing text reference ³IANA² as if it is an independent
entity, which it is not.  For example:

(i.e., those with direct operational or service relationship with IANA;
namely names, numbers, protocol parameters).

No group has a service relationship with ³IANA².  All the service
relationships are with ICANN as the IANA functions operator.

This is just one example.  I have been hesitant to make revisions that
correct this incorrect usage of IANA in the document because of the concern
many have expressed about write privileges for liaisons.  There are many
instances that incorrectly use the term IANA in the RFP.  I am volunteering
to make the corrections in the draft with editing turned, if you are willing
for me to do so.

Regards,
-- Elise 


From:  Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
Date:  Monday, August 25, 2014 at 4:36 AM
To:  Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>,
"internal-cg at icann.org" <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 community¹s 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
> 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140826/f9360b57/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5037 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140826/f9360b57/smime.p7s>