[Internal-cg] RFP subgroup

[joseph alhadeff]

I'm fine with Milton's language, though I want to make sure that while 
operational communities are required to be inclusive and have serious 
review of all comments they are also able to manage a process to arrive 
at consensus...  The operational community's knowledge of functional 
requirements does give it some enhanced basis for reaching conclusions 
related to those functional requirements... There may be more relevance 
of stakeholder comments in relation to broader governance, oversight and 
accountability issues/mechanisms of these groups  We cannot require 
processes of let 1000 flowers bloom that are so open ended as to 
endanger the ability to reach conclusion.  All groups have tight time 
frames to work under.

I would also suggest that we add the concept of community and 
stakeholder consultation on the unitary proposal, without specifying 
exactly when and how that consultation proceeds.

Joe

On 8/26/2014 9:49 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) requests “operational communities” of IANA (i.e., those with direct operational or service relationships with IANA, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol parameters) to convene processes to develop complete formal responses to this RFP.
> I do like your approach Milton even better.
>
>> Parallel is fine, but I'm not sure I understand how?
> I think we need to emphasize early involvement of the various stakeholders already in the community phase, rather than after-the-fact involvement at the ICG stage. But I think you already did it. If I understand Milton’s concern right, he is worried about adding a separate phase 2 stage in a more formal manner that we have done so far.
>
>> I'm also don't think that my language changes the charter as only operational communities submit proposals…
> Yes, excellent. And this is true of both of the proposals.
>
>> I still think we need to address the ability of stakeholders to directly comment to us in the development or on the unitary proposal. That is factual.
> The charter does require the ICG to perform both assessment of non-operational community input and have a public comment period so that we can determine broad support. As a result, I think it is fine to add something about broad stakeholder input to the RFP. I’m though inclined to go with Milton’s minimal approach to text changes.
>
> Jari
>