But still, I don’t like the “or” in there. I thought the preponderance of opinion was very much in favor of fixed, recurring intervals and not only in the case of disastrous “performance deficiencies.”
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of
on rereading the 1.6 version I see a function of the MRT (was PRT).
o Managing a rebidding process in the case of performance deficiencies or at regular rebidding intervals;
this comes real close to what I mean by Periodic RFPs. Was looking too narrowly for identical text instead of reading what was actually there.
I think it is necessary and I am glad to see this there.
apologies.
avri
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab
666 Third Avenue ï New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com