[Internal-cg] Stitching things together
alissa at cooperw.in
Thu Jun 4 23:33:46 UTC 2015
I think there are a few advantages to combining the proposals as the secretariat has done, with each community’s proposal contained in its own part.
First, as Lynn says, this structure mirrors the oversight structures for the functions today. As we’ve seen in exercising our coordination role, while there are overlaps between the functions, those overlaps are minimal compared to the arrangements in place within each community for overseeing the IANA functions.
Second, given that the names component looks like it will be far more extensive than the other two components, I think it will be quite easy for the numbers and protocol parameters responses to each RFP section to get lost in the text if the responses in each section are interleaved. We all know that most of the world’s attention is focused on names, but there will be some readers who will want the other two components to be easily locatable. Having each component in its own part serves the needs of both kinds of readers, allowing folks who just want to read about names to be able to do so by reading the bulk of the combined proposal, and allowing others to find the other two components easily. I would suggest that we make names part 1, with the other two parts afterward, once we receive the names proposal.
I agree with the need for a preface to the whole document provided by the ICG. I’ll send a separate mail about that.
On Jun 4, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at LStAmour.org> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Manal Ismail <manal at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>> I also agree that it's not a matter of finding ourselves a role ..
>> My understating is that the ICG role is to facilitate and coordinate among the operational communities on one hand and assemble and deliver the final proposal on the other ..
>> I don't mind drafting our own, summary, introduction, preamble, letter, whatever we agree to call it, and leave the 3 separate proposals as is .. But I don't see a point then in calling each of them 'combined proposal' .. to me they are more of annexes or attachments to whatever is going to be our final delivery ..
>> Do I understand right or am I missing something?
>> Kind Regards
> Hi Manal,
> I understand your question but to borrow from Joe Alhadeff's email, we are working to assure "a workable compatability across all the proposals and assuring that they properly completed all elements of our RFP in a manner that was sufficient to address our best understanding of what was being requested in the NTIA conditions", and I would add that we are all working to ensure the continued stability, security, of these identifiers, etc. etc. For me, all this is what makes it a "combined proposal". The challenge will be in getting all this reflected in the "introduction/summary", etc.
> FWIW, I actually thought about combining them differently as well (for the submission to NTIA) but I believe it is very important that we stay true in our submission to the way the functions are managed today. Keeping the work of the various communities intact and reinforcing this will be the most helpful to the IANA functions in the long-term.
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
More information about the Internal-cg