[Internal-cg] RFP subgroup

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Aug 27 21:32:13 UTC 2014


Dear Allé,
All suggestions are friedly .There is no unfriedly suggestions
We should look into the merit of proposal and not on the source.
I fully agree with the proposal
KAVOUSS


2014-08-27 22:48 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net>:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> following on my previous email (copied below), the ALAC proposes, as a
> friendly amendment, to add the following sentence at the end of the first
> paragraph of the draft RFP:
>
> "Although full proposals are not expected from non-operational
> communities, this RFP does not preclude any form of input from the
> non-operational communities."
>
> With this friendly amendment, the ALAC could accept the publication of the
> draft RFP.
>
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
> À: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>
> Cc: internal-cg at icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>, "Milton L
> Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 13:06:35
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
>
> If I may just remind that at our last ICG call, I had requested a delay
> until this Thursday 28 end of day UTC, so that ALAC could also approve or
> propose a friendly amendment. Thanks.
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic.net>
> À: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>, "Milton L Mueller" <
> mueller at syr.edu>, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> Cc: internal-cg at icann.org
> Envoyé: Mercredi 27 Août 2014 12:57:41
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
>
>
> It works for me too.  Can we have a new revision of the document, with
> Joe’s and Milton’s mods, to see what it looks like when assembled?
>
> It’d be safest I think if Joe and Milton could do those edits.
>
> thanks.
>
> Paul.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
> http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100
>
> See you at APNIC 38!                      http://conference.apnic.net/38
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Aug 2014, at 3:31 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>
> > On 8/26/14, 8:06 AM, "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm fine with Milton's language,
> >
> > Agreed, Milton’s proposed change works for me.
> >
> >> 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...
> >
> > To be clear, the requirement is not that there be consensus within each
> > process, but that each proposal document "An
> > assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s proposal,
> > including a description of areas of contention or disagreement,” as the
> > last sentence of the RFP explains.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > The introduction currently says "Proposals are expected to enjoy a broad
> > consensus of support from all interested parties.” If Milton’s change is
> > accepted, could that sentence be modified to address your concern?
> Perhaps
> > “The operational communities are expected to convene processes that aim
> to
> > produce proposals that enjoy a broad consensus of support from all
> > interested parties."
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > This is specified in the explanation of item (iii) in the charter:
> >
> > "The  ICG     will    then    develop a       draft   final   proposal
> > that  achieves        rough   consensus       within  the     ICG
>  itself. The     ICG     will    then    put
> > this
> > proposal      up      for     public  comment involving a
>  reasonable      period  of      time    for
> > reviewing     the     draft   proposal,       analyzing       and
>  preparing       supportive      or      critica
> > l
> > comments.     The     ICG     will    then    review  these   comments
>       and     determine       whether
> > modifications are     required.       If      no      modifications
>  are     needed, and     the
> > coordination  group   agrees, the     proposal        will    be
> submitted       to      NTIA.”
> >
> > I don’t really see a need to repeat this in the RFP since it concerns the
> > stage after the proposals have been submitted, but the RFP could point
> > readers to item (iii) in the charter if that would help.
> >
> > Alissa
> >
> >>
> >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140827/5f15c4df/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list