Dear Review Team Members, This is to notify you that the Request for Proposals was posted on the ICANN website yesterday – 2 July 2013: * https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-02jul13-en.htm * https://www.icann.org/en/news/rfps/atrt2-01jul13-en.pdf Please note that the RfP has been distributed to: * firms that had submitted proposals to the ATRT 1 in 2010- http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/proposals-evaluation-scoring-s... ( * international professional consulting organizations for broad distribution and posting. A wiki page has been created https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/Request+for+Proposals and a caption added to your wiki front page: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40176025 Thanks, Very best regards Alice From: "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick@icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 1:33 AM To: "Brian Cute (bcute@pir.org<mailto:bcute@pir.org>)" <bcute@pir.org<mailto:bcute@pir.org>>, "Fiona Asonga (fasonga@kixp.or.ke<mailto:fasonga@kixp.or.ke>)" <fasonga@kixp.or.ke<mailto:fasonga@kixp.or.ke>> Cc: "ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org>)" <atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP Dear Review Team members, Vice Chairs finalized the details of the RFP earlier today – please see attached document. Final RFP will be posted publically via an announcement on the ICANN web site today. Once this publication takes place, the following distributions will follow: * Direct emails to several firms that had submitted proposals to the ATRT 1 - http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/proposals-evaluation-scoring-s... (Booz Allen Hamilton , Deloitte , Ersoylu Consulting, Interisle Consulting , One World Trust, PRTM ,The Berkman Center) * Direct emails to assorted international professional consulting organizations for broad distribution and posting. Final document and links to public postings will be updated on the ARTR 2 wiki, once available. Best regards, Larisa -----Original Message----- From: atrt2-bounces@icann.org<mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Fiona Alexander Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 3:16 PM To: Brian Cute Cc: ATRT2 Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP Is there an update on the timing of the RFP release? -----Original Message----- From: atrt2-bounces@icann.org<mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian Cute Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 2:45 AM To: Jørgen C Abild Andersen; Larry Strickling Cc: ATRT2 Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP Vice Chairs, I support the amendments proposed by Larry and supported by Jorgen. As we discussed, ATRT2 can go into much greater detail with respect to the scope of work and questions to be explored in the interview process and with the selected Independent Expert. With respect to Larry's comment regarding the timeline, we may need to "tighten up" the timeline as suggested. That being said, getting the RFP out today or tomorrow at the latest is important given our overall time constraints. Best regards, Brian From: Jørgen C Abild Andersen <jocaan@erst.dk<mailto:jocaan@erst.dk<mailto:jocaan@erst.dk<mailto:jocaan@erst.dk>>> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 09:12:03 -0400 To: Larry Strickling <LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov>>> Cc: ATRT2 <atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP I fully support Larry's comments (and also Avri's attempts to avoid any potential prejudice in the questions). Larry's proposals for mentioning GAC in the text are very well reflecting the spirit my original proposal but with a much better wording. Many thanks Larry. Best regards Jørgen Sendt fra min iPad Den 28/06/2013 kl. 22.04 skrev "Larry Strickling" <LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov>>>: I have some comments on the draft document. First, I think the timeframes do not work well when matched against the schedule we face to complete our work by the end of the year. I think any consultant report, to be helpful to the committee, must be submitted to us in final form no later than September 20, the date now proposed for a status report. Second, I think it is important that the scope of work include benchmarking against other relevant multistakeholder processes. I propose that language be added to include that concept in the last paragraph of the scope of work as follows: "benchmark the ICANN PDP process against other relevant multistakeholder processes." We can add this phrase after the parenthetical (See Annex) in that bullet point. Third, notwithstanding that the GAC is one of many stakeholders at ICANN, its positioning vis-à-vis the PDP is complicated by the fact that the bylaws currently contemplate the GAC providing its advice to the Board and not to supporting organizations as they do their work. I strongly agree with Jorgen that some specific mention of at least this aspect of the GAC issue should be included in the RFP and propose a fourth bullet point in the third part of the scope of work headed "provide a critical analysis . . ." as follows: "to what extent the ICANN bylaw process by which the GAC submits advice to the Board prevents or inhibits the participation of the GAC in the PDP and whether the PDP process could be strengthened by encouraging the submission of views and advice from the GAC and governments earlier in the process." Thank you and I hope I am not too late in proposing these changes. Larry From:atrt2-bounces@icann.org<mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org><mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:34 PM To: ATRT2 Subject: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP Importance: High Attached please find the hopefully final RFP. Before disappearing for the next week, Brian made some edits, one of which removed the explicit reference to the GAC under scope of work. Since he is not here to present his rationale, I have temporarily left in his comment about why he felt strongly that the particular reference should not be included in the RFP. Partly in response to that, Lise and I, with Avri's agreement included an explicit reference to ICANN ACs and SOs in the Annex description of stakeholders. In addition to posting this RFP publicly, staff has identified two potential consultants to explicitly be invited to bid, One World Trust and Ken Bour.With this note, I ask staff to explain why they believe that they could meet our needs. If anyone on the RT has additional suggestions for who to invite, please let us know quickly. The list of those submitting proposals to the ATRT1 competition can be found at <http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/rfp-respondents-evaluation-19jun10-en.pdf>http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/rfp-respondents-evaluation-19jun10-en.pdf . If we are to meet the target issue date of July 1 (next Monday!), we need to finalize everything quickly, so I ask for all comments and suggestions to arrive no later that 12:00 UTC on Friday, June 28. If there are any crucial edits to them RFP itself, please submit them as soon as possible to allow discussion. Alan _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2