Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2_ CCWG Ombudsman Subgroup, Meeting #13 - 09 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/dZjDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. ICANN Email: yvette.guigneaux@icann.org Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Playa Vista, CA 90094 ________________________________ NOTES 14 participants + 4 staff at start of call. Roll Call / Apologies - Welcome - Opening Remarks Sebastien Bachollet: we have not met for a while as we were trying to get all the required staff to attend. Any comments on agenda? (none). This call will focus on the review of the Ombuds office. External review of the ICANN Ombuds Office Discussion with legal staff Sebastien Bachollet: Review of question to ICANN Legal regarding the participation of the current Ombudsman. Reply does not beleive there is a conflict of interest (see answer from legal committee for details). LC suggests this may be more a policy question and suggest posting this to the plenary. Questions comments? Herb Waye: See myself as a resource and will only participate when called on. Chris LaHatte: I dont consider that I have any conflict of inteest in any event as I am not being paid by ICANN or anyone at all for participating Sebastien Bachollet: We will not raise the question with the plenary as we are satisfied with the answer from ICANN Legal - any comments? (None). Discussion with procurement staff Larisa Gurnick: Introduction of review staff (Lars Hoffmann, Charla Shambley, Vivek SenGupta) that will be involved. Review of slides. LH will present our process in detail> Lars Hoffmann: Presentation of slides (Scope of Work (RFP), Work Methods, Deliverables, Candidate Evaluation Criteria. Vivek SenGupta - Director Procurement: Presentation of Lefecycle of ICANN RFP Process slides. Lars Hoffmann: Proposed Roadmap for Assessment of ICANN's Ombudsman Office - looking at conducting assessment in March-April. Roles and responsibilities. Discussion with "reviews" staff Sebastien Bachollet: Thank you for presentations - questions? Asha Hemrajani: Based on your past experience what do you expect this would cost (ball park). Second question are there companies that do these types of reviews or are we thinking of using consultancies we have used for other reviews. Larisa Gurnick: Initial budget is based on prior experience. As to who would be qualified - we are in no way restricting it to anyone. All suggestions of qualified orgs. would be appreciated so we can ensure they get the RFP. Alberto Soto: Is very expensive...Is there a pre-bid? Larisa Gurnick: An important part of our evaluation is to assess the value of each proposal and keep the costs under control. Larisa Gurnick: @aberto - can you please clarify what you meant by pre-bid? Asha Hemrajani: I guess Alberto may be talking about a pre-qualification phase Alberto Soto: Yes, is it a direct contracting? Vivek SenGupta: @alberto in the interest of time we will not have a pre-bid phase. We use the Initial Evaluation process to assess all bids, and then move forward those bids that are feasible ...to the Detailed Evaluation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes the ALAC Review WP is 23 members Vivek SenGupta: we do not advertise the budget in the RFP at all for obvious reasons, so we look at all bids Alberto Soto: Ok, tnanks Vivek SenGupta: @alberto it is not direct contracting i.e. we do require a comprehensive proposal to be submitted by the respondents, including detailed documents that will be asked for Larisa Gurnick: Sebastian - thank you very much for drawing attention to this point Asha Hemrajani: Good answer looking forward to making this open to all. Asha Hemrajani: @Chris I like the idea of advertising to get wider choice of candidate companies, but with a tight control on costs. Chris LaHatte: There are some blogs and sites where ombuds hang out So advertising costs will be minimal Larisa Gurnick: sure, absolutely Karen Mulberry: We can make sure that the Subgroup receives the RFP announcement so it can be circulated out to a broader group of experts Sebastien Bachollet: To meet the schedule of getting the RFP ready we will have to work intensively to meet the January deadline. When will you need our input and what size of group to you require to help you get this done? Lars Hoffmann: This group will need to get some work done prior to the RFP being let. We would send you a first draft of the RFP to get you started. We could then work with you as best suits you (another meeting, red-line documents etc.). As to timing you will probably have a better idea once you see our first draft. We hope to get something to you for the middle of next week. On the size of the group we have no comment and do not see it as an issue - this is up to you. Asha Hemrajani: Most important aspect of this review is to have a good list of deliverables (garbage in, garbage out). This group needs to spend the required time to have good deliverables. Sebastien Bachollet: budget discussions should be kept confidential. As to the scope of work - I seem to remember the definition of this work in ATRT2 being different - we need to see both. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: This will my third review party - just want to emphasize the quality and professionalism of the ICANN Team for RFP's and the Reviews. Larisa Gurnick: What CLO was referring to were different - this is an independent assessment as it is not mandated by the Bylaws - so similar but not the same. Connection between ATRT2 and this - those recommendations were made at the end of 2013 - but a lot has changed since then - so these could be a good starting point but we may need to update to get the best results. Sebastien Bachollet: We may need to update it but we have to say this is what we are starting with. Asha Hemrajani: Good distinction Larisa Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I would however expect similar and similarly professional processes Larisa Herb Waye Ombuds: I'm sure the RFP for the ATRT 2 review can be used as a starting point. If the reveiw will be similar. How to organize our team? Sebastien Bachollet: would recommend we set up a small core team for the RFP given low participation. We can decide this on our next call. Prep of the next WS2 plenary (Dec 14, 2016) Sebastien Bachollet: presentation of update to be made to plenary. Calendar Sebastien Bachollet: please review the proposed schedule of calls going forward and avise if there are issues. Next meeting #14 0500 Monday Dec 19, 2016 AOB (none) Sebastien Bachollet: Adjourned.