URGENT: Final Draft RFP
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
I need time until Saturday please Carlos Raul Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +(506) 8837 7176 -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sender: atrt2-bounces@icann.org Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:33:48 To: ATRT2<atrt2@icann.org> Subject: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Dear Review Team, In response to Alan's request "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.": Staff believes that One World Trust potentially could meet the needs of the Review Team because of their prior work for ICANN and their specific expertise in the area of accountability and transparency. Ken Bour (kbpraxis.com<http://kbpraxis.com>) has the required depth of understanding of ICANN's policy development process, GNSO structures, and a demonstrated ability to work efficiently. Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick@icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995 From: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 8:34 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-19j... . 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
Dear Alan I am somewhat surprised about your e-mail and I am not sure that I fully understand the reasons for the proposed change of the approach we agreed at the conference call last week. As you will recall the agreement we reached also included adding a sentence as proposed by me. Upon your proposal it was also agreed that the exact wording of the sentence should be agreed between you and me bilaterally. I have not seen your proposal for fine tuning of the wording yet but I will urge you to send your proposal for a more precise wording of the sentence to me as soon as possible as I think we all agree that it is very important to get the process started very soon in accordance with what was agreed at our conference call last week. Best regards Jørgen ________________________________ Fra: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Alan Greenberg Sendt: 27. juni 2013 05:34 Til: ATRT2 Emne: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP Prioritet: Høj 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-19j... . 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
Hi, I would like to point out that I do not beleive we had agreement on the addition of your sentence in the meeting. You proposed and we listened respectfully, but we never reached an agreement and said we would work on it. I certainly did not support it and I do not think I was alone. avri On 28 Jun 2013, at 04:01, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:
Dear Alan
I am somewhat surprised about your e-mail and I am not sure that I fully understand the reasons for the proposed change of the approach we agreed at the conference call last week. As you will recall the agreement we reached also included adding a sentence as proposed by me. Upon your proposal it was also agreed that the exact wording of the sentence should be agreed between you and me bilaterally. I have not seen your proposal for fine tuning of the wording yet but I will urge you to send your proposal for a more precise wording of the sentence to me as soon as possible as I think we all agree that it is very important to get the process started very soon in accordance with what was agreed at our conference call last week.
Best regards Jørgen
Fra: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Alan Greenberg Sendt: 27. juni 2013 05:34 Til: ATRT2 Emne: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP Prioritet: Høj
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-19j... .
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Yes Avri! But Lisa and I concurred with Jørgen's proposal in case you want to take us into account and now Larry has made some valuable comments on why Governments may look slightly different. I will send my comments Ro the text tomorrow around 4pm Eastern time. Carlos Raul Sent from my iPhone On 28/06/2013, at 08:11, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to point out that I do not beleive we had agreement on the addition of your sentence in the meeting. You proposed and we listened respectfully, but we never reached an agreement and said we would work on it.
I certainly did not support it and I do not think I was alone.
avri
On 28 Jun 2013, at 04:01, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:
Dear Alan
I am somewhat surprised about your e-mail and I am not sure that I fully understand the reasons for the proposed change of the approach we agreed at the conference call last week. As you will recall the agreement we reached also included adding a sentence as proposed by me. Upon your proposal it was also agreed that the exact wording of the sentence should be agreed between you and me bilaterally. I have not seen your proposal for fine tuning of the wording yet but I will urge you to send your proposal for a more precise wording of the sentence to me as soon as possible as I think we all agree that it is very important to get the process started very soon in accordance with what was agreed at our conference call last week.
Best regards Jørgen
Fra: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Alan Greenberg Sendt: 27. juni 2013 05:34 Til: ATRT2 Emne: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP Prioritet: Høj
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-19j... .
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Jørgen, Your original proposal was "whether in particular the views and advice provided by GAC has been duly taken into account given the specific tasks of national governments with respect to public policy." There was a strong feeling from both Brian and Avri that we not call out one particular stakeholder. Moreover, like other parts of my original draft that were omitted, we need to be careful that the wording of the RFP does not direct the outcome (that is, by us identifying the issue of whether the GAC input is taken into account, we are to some extent reaching a conclusion ahead of time - we wouldn't ask the question if there were not a perceived problem). We already have the sub-bullet: "to what extent process incorporates the views, advice and needs of all stakeholders, both those active in ICANN and those not typically present for ICANN deliberations (See Annex)." In Brian's absence, we (the three vice-chairs) feel that the best we can do is to move the list of ICANN stakeholders from the Annex to the scope, replacing that bullet with: "to what extent process incorporates the views, advice and needs stakeholders, ICANN Advisory Committees - Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), At-large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC); Supporting Organizations - Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), Address Supporting Organization (ASO); and those not typically present for ICANN deliberations (See Annex)." And removing the footnotes in the Annex. I hope that you can accept this so that we can issue the RFP prior to Brian's return. Alan (on behalf of Lise and Avri) At 28/06/2013 04:01 AM, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:
Dear Alan
I am somewhat surprised about your e-mail and I am not sure that I fully understand the reasons for the proposed change of the approach we agreed at the conference call last week. As you will recall the agreement we reached also included adding a sentence as proposed by me. Upon your proposal it was also agreed that the exact wording of the sentence should be agreed between you and me bilaterally. I have not seen your proposal for fine tuning of the wording yet but I will urge you to send your proposal for a more precise wording of the sentence to me as soon as possible as I think we all agree that it is very important to get the process started very soon in accordance with what was agreed at our conference call last week.
Best regards Jørgen
---------- Fra: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Alan Greenberg Sendt: 27. juni 2013 05:34 Til: ATRT2 Emne: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP Prioritet: Høj
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
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] 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-19j... . 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
Hi, On 28 Jun 2013, at 16:03, Larry Strickling wrote:
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.
Good addition.
“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.”
I am generally comfortable with this addition, however, in order to not prejudice the question, would it be ok to: substitute "affects positively or negatively" for "prevents or inhibits?" Just to point out the different perspectives, my current analysis, e.g., would be that by opting no to participate in the full process as other stakeholder and then submitting advice at the end of the process, the GAC actually increases its control over the PDP process. So while I fervently beleive that the process would be strengthened by earlier GAC participation, I do not agree that they are at all inhibited at this point. thanks avri
I'm fine with your friendly amendment. -----Original Message----- From: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 4:17 PM To: ATRT2 Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP Importance: High Hi, On 28 Jun 2013, at 16:03, Larry Strickling wrote:
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.
Good addition.
"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."
I am generally comfortable with this addition, however, in order to not prejudice the question, would it be ok to: substitute "affects positively or negatively" for "prevents or inhibits?" Just to point out the different perspectives, my current analysis, e.g., would be that by opting no to participate in the full process as other stakeholder and then submitting advice at the end of the process, the GAC actually increases its control over the PDP process. So while I fervently beleive that the process would be strengthened by earlier GAC participation, I do not agree that they are at all inhibited at this point. thanks avri _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Thanks avri On 28 Jun 2013, at 16:23, Larry Strickling wrote:
I'm fine with your friendly amendment.
-----Original Message----- From: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 4:17 PM To: ATRT2 Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP Importance: High
Hi,
On 28 Jun 2013, at 16:03, Larry Strickling wrote:
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.
Good addition.
"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."
I am generally comfortable with this addition, however, in order to not prejudice the question, would it be ok to:
substitute "affects positively or negatively" for "prevents or inhibits?"
Just to point out the different perspectives, my current analysis, e.g., would be that by opting no to participate in the full process as other stakeholder and then submitting advice at the end of the process, the GAC actually increases its control over the PDP process. So while I fervently beleive that the process would be strengthened by earlier GAC participation, I do not agree that they are at all inhibited at this point.
thanks
avri
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
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 At 28/06/2013 04:32 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Thanks
avri
On 28 Jun 2013, at 16:23, Larry Strickling wrote:
I'm fine with your friendly amendment.
-----Original Message----- From: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 4:17 PM To: ATRT2 Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP Importance: High
Hi,
On 28 Jun 2013, at 16:03, Larry Strickling wrote:
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.
Good addition.
"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."
I am generally comfortable with this addition, however, in order to not prejudice the question, would it be ok to:
substitute "affects positively or negatively" for "prevents or inhibits?"
Just to point out the different perspectives, my current analysis, e.g., would be that by opting no to participate in the full process as other stakeholder and then submitting advice at the end of the process, the GAC actually increases its control over the PDP process. So while I fervently beleive that the process would be strengthened by earlier GAC participation, I do not agree that they are at all inhibited at this point.
thanks
avri
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
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
At 28/06/2013 07:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
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.
Sorry, I had guests coming and needed to start preparing dinner. Alan
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>>: 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] 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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Hi, Thanks Jørgen Does anyone object to posting this version so we can start the clock? Be good to have posted on Monday if no one objects before then Thanks. Avri (speaking sort of as a vice-chair but without any authorization to do so in the absence of the chair. ) On 29 Jun 2013, at 09:12, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote:
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>:
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] 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-19j... .
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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Brian asked me to convey his support for Larry's comments & Jorgen's acceptance of the proposed text changes. Assuming the Vice Chairs concur, let's try to get the RFP out NLT Monday (1 July). Best, P On Jun 29, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, Thanks Jørgen Does anyone object to posting this version so we can start the clock? Be good to have posted on Monday if no one objects before then Thanks. Avri (speaking sort of as a vice-chair but without any authorization to do so in the absence of the chair. ) On 29 Jun 2013, at 09:12, Jørgen C Abild Andersen wrote: 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>>: 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] 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-19j... . 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> 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
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>> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 09:12:03 -0400 To: Larry Strickling <LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov>> Cc: ATRT2 <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>>: 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] 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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Is there an update on the timing of the RFP release? -----Original Message----- From: 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>> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 09:12:03 -0400 To: Larry Strickling <LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov>> Cc: ATRT2 <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>>: 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] 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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
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] 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] 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
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
Hi, Thanks for all the work in getting this out. And thanks to all of those who worked to reach consensus on this document. I have one question on the nature of reports and such ATRT2 puts out. In this case, the RFP was vetted by legal, and they did make a few edits. Is this the case for all ATRT2 documents or was this exceptional in that it was an ICANN RFP? avri On 3 Jul 2013, at 12:06, Alice Jansen wrote:
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> Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 1:33 AM To: "Brian Cute (bcute@pir.org)" <bcute@pir.org>, "Fiona Asonga (fasonga@kixp.or.ke)" <fasonga@kixp.or.ke> Cc: "ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org)" <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] 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] 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>> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 09:12:03 -0400 To: Larry Strickling <LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov>> Cc: ATRT2 <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>>:
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] 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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Avri, It is not typically the case that ATRT documents are vetted by ICANN legal. This being an RFP issued by ICANN, that process is necessary. Brian On 7/4/13 11:00 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@ella.com> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for all the work in getting this out.
And thanks to all of those who worked to reach consensus on this document.
I have one question on the nature of reports and such ATRT2 puts out. In this case, the RFP was vetted by legal, and they did make a few edits. Is this the case for all ATRT2 documents or was this exceptional in that it was an ICANN RFP?
avri
On 3 Jul 2013, at 12:06, Alice Jansen wrote:
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-scorin g-sheet-19jun10-en.pdf ( € 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> Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 1:33 AM To: "Brian Cute (bcute@pir.org)" <bcute@pir.org>, "Fiona Asonga (fasonga@kixp.or.ke)" <fasonga@kixp.or.ke> Cc: "ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org)" <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-scorin g-sheet-19jun10-en.pdf (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] 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] 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>> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 09:12:03 -0400 To: Larry Strickling <LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov>> Cc: ATRT2 <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>>:
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] 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-respond ents-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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Hi, Thanks Brian, Just wanted to make sure. avri On 8 Jul 2013, at 19:14, Brian Cute wrote:
Avri,
It is not typically the case that ATRT documents are vetted by ICANN legal. This being an RFP issued by ICANN, that process is necessary.
Brian
On 7/4/13 11:00 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@ella.com> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for all the work in getting this out.
And thanks to all of those who worked to reach consensus on this document.
I have one question on the nature of reports and such ATRT2 puts out. In this case, the RFP was vetted by legal, and they did make a few edits. Is this the case for all ATRT2 documents or was this exceptional in that it was an ICANN RFP?
avri
On 3 Jul 2013, at 12:06, Alice Jansen wrote:
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-scorin g-sheet-19jun10-en.pdf ( € 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> Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 1:33 AM To: "Brian Cute (bcute@pir.org)" <bcute@pir.org>, "Fiona Asonga (fasonga@kixp.or.ke)" <fasonga@kixp.or.ke> Cc: "ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org)" <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-scorin g-sheet-19jun10-en.pdf (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] 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] 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>> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 09:12:03 -0400 To: Larry Strickling <LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:LStrickling@ntia.doc.gov>> Cc: ATRT2 <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>>:
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] 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-respond ents-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> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
participants (11)
-
"Carlos Raúl G." -
Alan Greenberg -
Alice Jansen -
Avri Doria -
Brian Cute -
carlosraulg＠gmail.com -
Fiona Alexander -
Jørgen C Abild Andersen -
Larisa B. Gurnick -
Larry Strickling -
Paul Diaz