[Internal-cg] Redraft of RFP
Paul Wilson
pwilson at apnic.net
Mon Jul 28 05:48:46 UTC 2014
On 26 Jul 2014, at 7:28 am, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:
> Paul:
>
> 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.
Well, my intent was to recognise that there may be various options involved in coming to a conclusion, and if so, these alternatives should be supplied by the communities, not invented by the ICG.
If we invite singular and non-negotiable proposals from the communities, we might find ourselves without a single workable solution; so my thought was that if alternatives are available which are satisfactory to the communities concerned, then these should be spelt out so that the ICG can find a better final solution. This would indeed involve making judgements and accepting/rejecting alternatives, but I didn’t see those things ruled out by the Charter (item iii).
Paul.
>
> Russ
>
>
> 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 RFP.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>> <Proposal Requirements v5.docx>
>
More information about the Internal-cg
mailing list