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)