El 29/06/2013 10:57, Avri Doria escribió:
Hi,


May we peek at the last version?

we?  did you mean to just send that note to me.  Or did you mean for it to go to the list?

In any case, I had sent it before, but here it is again.

avri


Begin forwarded message:


From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com>
Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP
Date: 28 June 2013 19:22:29 EDT
To: ATRT2 <atrt2@icann.org>

Hi,

On 28 Jun 2013, at 17:50, Alan Greenberg wrote:


Avri, I will let you do the next revision and am attaching the Word document. I don't have the time at the moment.

Alan


Alan, you are so very kind.  Thank you ever so much.

All,

Attached is the RFP V7bis

- Based on the last version Alan sent
- 3 changes made
- Review mode is on.

1. adjusted date for delivery to Sept 20 and dropped one status update.
2. added bullet discussing benchmarking.  In doing so, I do not beleive I put it where suggested, but rather put it as a stand alone bullet.  I just could not get the sentence to work right elsewhere.  I probably misunderstood the placement instructions, so if someone can offer better placement or working, please send text.
3. added amended statement on GAC process issue as sub-bullet 4 of the fourth bullet.

avri









_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2


      

    

    Thank you Avri,

    

    this is certainly a very different document from Alan's initial one.
    I think it is fine and I do not propose any changes in the text. I
    would jut like to leave on record some comments on the expectations
    I have from the expert's work:

    

    
    
1. I worry that others may
      negatively interpret "earlier"  as a sign of delays, unnecessary
      controls, etc. etc.. Colleagues from GAC clearly expressed in
      Beijing the fact that GAC will never be able to act at the same
      speed as GNSO. So I would expect that the expert would concentrate
      on defining the right moment and the right level of engagement of
      GAC, instead of the point in time only.

    
2. One of the success
      factors of the PDP should also be how significant and indicative
      are the public comments received. i.e. do they represent  all the
      different point of views ? do they represent views of all
      stakeholders ? is this currently being considered ? What about
      minority positions? I worry from David Olive's report on public
      comments, the group of issues that did not receive any public
      comments.

    
3. the third paragraph in
      the ANNEX should be turned around into a question for the expert
      to answer: IS The GNSO PDP an effective,
        accountable and transparent process?

    
4. I would expect from an
      expert to come up with his own recommendations on how to improve
      the different aspects of the PDP

    

    
Thank you and have a nice
      Sunday

    

    
Carlos Raul

      (out of Newark NJ)