[Internal-cg] Redraft of RFP
manal at tra.gov.eg
Sun Jul 27 10:33:51 UTC 2014
Many thanks Paul for the redraft and for triggering this discussion ..
I don't have editorial comments yet but I have a couple of
- How many categories of communities are we talking about, 2? 'customer
communities of IANA' and 'others'? I can see that we keep referring to
'communities', 'customer communities of IANA', 'all communities of
interest', 'other parties with specific interest', which I believe is a
bit confusing to anyone who was not part of the discussions ..
- I think the draft is a bit sophisticated, focusing on the 3 'customer
communities of IANA' .. should we split the draft into 2 in order not to
confuse everyone with the specific requirements addressed to the 3
identified IANA customers?
- Regarding the 3 customer communities of IANA, I believe we are
basically asking for 3 things:
1. Status Quo of current services (guided by the requested
2. Transition proposal (which I don't see explicitly requested
in this draft)
3. Foreseen implications of the transition, on the current
services, in light of the submitted proposal
Is my understanding accurate?
- Generally speaking, can proposals be as long as the submitter wishes?
With the tight timeframe we have, should we be guided by NETmundial
(there was a limit on the size of submissions) and encourage concise
(not sure if this is the right word) proposals? Or are we confident,
having already encouraged submissions through the relevant communities?
- Finally, what is the deadline for finalizing this draft ..
I fully agree that ICG should not be accepting or rejecting proposals ..
Unless the intention here is that communities may include distinct
alternative options, all equally satisfactory to them, where ICG may
then choose from the submitted alternatives based on workability and
compatibility with the different proposals submitted by other
Just thinking out loud ..
From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:28 PM
To: Paul Wilson
Cc: ICG Internal
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Redraft of RFP
I have several small concerns, but I am _very_ worried about one
sentence. I want to raise that first. Maybe that resolution will sort
my smaller concerns too.
I am troubled by the statement, "Where possible and appropriate,distinct
alternative options should be identified". I don't want the ICG
discussing alternatives. I am certain that we do not want the ICG
accepting or rejecting alternatives.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your intent.
On Jul 25, 2014, at 12:03 AM, Paul Wilson wrote:
> Thanks to comments from a few of you, here's a further draft of the
> My feeling is that a very structured approach is needed, and I hope
that we can gather all the needed information in this way. From the IP
addressing community, I think we could provide a detailed and complete
response in this format, but other will need to be able to do so too.
> I hope this is useful.
> <Proposal Requirements v5.docx>
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg