Thanks to Avri for incorporating the suggestions to date. I think that all have been included except for Demi's last suggestion of adding the task of identifying comparable MS processes. I tried adding that, but it made for a very awkward sentence, and it is already implied, since the comparison cannot be done without first identifying what to compare to (thanks to Avri for pointing that out).

I did some punctuation cleanup, and have one other suggestion for a change, removing the word "encouraging" from "...whether the PDP process could be strengthened by encouraging the submission of views and advice from the GAC whether the PDP process could be strengthened by encouraging the submission of views and advice from the GAC..." since it is not the encouraging that would not change anything, but the actual submission. That change is redlined in the version attached.

Larisa has also made some administrative changes.

Unless I hear anything further (about that last changes or anything else in the RFP), I will send give staff the go-ahead to issue the RFP at 16:00 UTC on Monday (9 am PST and 2 hours after the end of our call with the CSG).

Alan

At 30/06/2013 05:51 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

I move one bullet, but could not come up with wording for his Identify clause. 
Seems like one would have to identify them before benchmarking against them.

avri




On 30 Jun 2013, at 12:41, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Anyone want to take them on?
>
> If so, may I pass the editor token to you?
>
> avri
>
> _______________________________________________
> atrt2-coordination mailing list
> atrt2-coordination@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2-coordination
>

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

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

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html