[Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Aug 29 16:42:38 UTC 2014
Dear All,
There arae legal and procedural problem in the darft
I proposed amendments and do not understand nor convinced why some of you
even do not wish to look at those relevant amendments as contained in REV 2
which I sent to you before
TKS
Kavouss
2014-08-29 18:18 GMT+02:00 Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net>:
> It works for me as well.
>
> - a.
>
> On Aug 28, 2014, at 19:19 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>
> > Me too.
> > Alissa
> >
> > On 8/28/14, 7:26 AM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs at dyalog.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I agree with Milton's latest proposed modification.
> >> Best regards,
> >> Jean-Jacques.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Mail original -----
> >> De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
> >> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>, "Paul Wilson"
> >> <pwilson at apnic.net>
> >> Cc: internal-cg at icann.org, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>, "joseph
> >> alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
> >> Envoyé: Jeudi 28 Août 2014 15:28:12
> >> Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
> >>
> >> As expressed on the call and in my own proposed modification, I do not
> >> oppose the sentiment behind JJ's modification.
> >> However, in some ways this wording undercuts the more liberal approach
> to
> >> input by saying that we "do not expect full proposals from
> >> non-operational communities." To my mind, this creates an unwanted
> >> dichotomy between the operational community proposal development process
> >> and "everyone else," when what we want is for op and non-operational
> >> communities to work together on a proposal.
> >>
> >> Thus I could support this change only if the first clause is sawed off,
> >> to read:
> >>
> >> "This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the non-operational
> >> communities."
> >>
> >> Addressing Joe's concerns about our capacity, etc. I am not worried.
> >> While I strongly agree with him that we do not want to encourage groups
> >> to go off into their own silos and come up with a proposal in isolation
> >> (and I can think of two groups that have a tendency to do that), I think
> >> the RFP already puts major emphasis on widespread support for proposals.
> >> If anyone "goes silo" they should be prepared for the fact that their
> >> ideas will not be part of the final package unless they can show that
> >> they have support outside their silo and made a serious effort to gain
> >> support from the other parts of the community making a proposal. Also, I
> >> do not think we are going to get dozens of actual proposals.
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:48 PM
> >>> To: Paul Wilson
> >>> Cc: internal-cg at icann.org; Alissa Cooper; Milton L Mueller; joseph
> >>> alhadeff
> >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RFP subgroup
> >>>
> >>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140829/c170f58a/attachment.html>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list