Re: [ALAC] (PMX: 8): Re: FW: URS follow-up
At 22/10/2012 11:36 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 22 October 2012 10:15, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I think we need to wait for the RFIs to come in. At this point, it would appear that little would need to be changed to meet the price points. Limitations such as NAF suggests in the number of complaints per fee sound reasonable to me. There have also been comments that requiring electronic submission might lower costs and that too sounds reasonable. So I see no reason to resist talking. It is structural changes that we need to be careful about.
I agree. Complaints-per-submission and method of submission sound more like mechanics than policy and I'm fine with discussing those,
Indeed, I don't recall that such minutae was even considered by the STI as policy. If that was the case, do such non-policy-related changes even need to go back to the community? Why not just revise them and open a public comment process?
Perhaps if that is all that needs to be changed, a public comment may be the vehicle. Important to remember that the STI set a $300-500 window. If the prospective bidders can do it for $500, may still be worth looking at acceptable changes that can get it to approach the lower bound.
If there is a review team to monitor the implementation change, it certainly demands At-Large involvement.
The concept of an implementation team is a new one that was not contemplated at the time of the STI. Otherwise, would have doubtless been suggested then. If a group is now reconvened to make any changes (whether at the substantive level or process, I would expect an implementation team to be created to address questions that come up during implementation, with membership open to those involved in setting the policy, which I expect to include ALAC. Alan
- Evan
On 22 October 2012 12:15, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Perhaps if that is all that needs to be changed, a public comment may be
the vehicle. Important to remember that the STI set a $300-500 window. If the prospective bidders can do it for $500, may still be worth looking at acceptable changes that can get it to approach the lower bound.
Who knows? If we actually sought out bidders who were not the usual suspects, perhaps we might find orgs who possess the necessary quality of operations yet may be able to be even less expensive. Personally, I am amazed why a process like thus would even state a minimum value. If there is a target than bidders will meet the target; being less expensvive is reasonably and universally considered to be a competitive advantage amongst bidders. IMO ICANN has botched (and continues to botch) the ROI, continuing a bias against unknown (to ICANN) players. - Evan
If there is a review team to monitor the implementation change, it certainly demands At-Large involvement.
The concept of an implementation team is a new one that was not contemplated at the time of the STI. Otherwise, would have doubtless been suggested then. If a group is now reconvened to make any changes (whether at the substantive level or process, I would expect an implementation team to be created to address questions that come up during implementation, with membership open to those involved in setting the policy, which I expect to include ALAC.
Alan
- Evan
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch