Dear Lynn, Also, as discussed, we need to list the interim and final deliverables in the the RFP (survery for feedback, data, report, etc.). regards, Sarmad On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:09 PM, <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:
agree - will be working on revisions after our internal debrief this afternoon. Thanks to both of you for reading the draft right away and coming back with useful changes to make. Lynn
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research From: "Dr.Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad@cantab.net> Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 1:57 am To: "Kim G. von Arx" <kim@vonarx.ca> Cc: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois@icann.org>
Thanks Kim. Range would be good idea, to give, instead of leaving it completely open.
regards, Sarmad
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Kim G. von Arx <kim@vonarx.ca> wrote:
Hi Sarmad:
I think that is a good point, however, I would suggest that we keep the number of countries blank, but add some language that requires the applicant to support their reasoning and how it will fully encompass a truly global perspective including developing countries, genders, ages, etc. Alternatively, I would suggest we provide a range.
Kim
On 21 Jun 2011, at 23:59, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote:
Dear Kim and All,
I was recently in a discussion at a forum within ICANN, where we were discussing a study which did not get the necessary results and thus failed to help the work being undertaken. A self-criticism which came out of this discussion was that the group within ICANN provisioning the study did not get involved in enough detail while planning the study. Thus, I would suggest to be more specific, where we are clear in what we require (this will also help in getting clearer proposals and save re-negotiation time for ambiguous proposals).
regards, Sarmad
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Kim G. von Arx <kim@vonarx.ca> wrote:
Actually, having thought about it, I think we may be better served if we just simply leave the numbers out and see what the applicants suggest.
Kim
On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:54, Kim G. von Arx wrote:
I agree with those changes. Thanks Sarmad. I am, however, still concerned about the limit of 10 and 3 respectively as I am concerned that 3 will not fairly canvass the developing countries in the three relevant regions, i.e., Africa, Asia-Pacific, and South-America. Therefore, I think it should, at the very least, be increased to 15 and 5 or even in the 20s.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
Kim
On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:47, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote:
Dear all,
Thanks Lynn and Kim.
Here is another version of 3.2 incorporating some more of the points. I am highlighting changes above those already incorporated by Kim.
3.2. The second deliverable is to perform surveys on a global scope in multiple languages and scripts, compile and analyze the results and report findings. A minimum of ten (10) key countries is required and must be reasonably distributed across countries in the Asia Pacific region, the Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa and shall include, at least, 3 developing countries. The surveys must collect a minimum of 100 responses per country. Surveys should be conducted in the language that is local for each country. A fair and balanced approach must be employed to canvass all age and gender groups equally.
regards, Sarmad
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Lynn Goodendorf < lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:
Thanks Dr. Sarmad and Kim. The info I gathered on cost elements and variables indicate that the number of languages carries more incremental cost than the number of countries. However, in order to get a valid sample per country, some would be more difficult than others. Lynn
*Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO™ on AT&T*
-----Original message-----
*From: *"Kim G. von Arx" <kim@vonarx.ca>* To: *lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com, lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com* Cc: *rt4-whois@icann.org* Sent: *Wed, Jun 22, 2011 01:35:24 GMT+00:00* Subject: *Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research
Hi Lynn:
Great work. I made some track changes in the document. I am not sure if we want to include more detailed Terms and Conditions of the RFP, but I think that is up to ICANN. I added just two terms and conditions obligations: (1) IP assignment - assuming that we want to retain the IP rights; and (2) provided a more specific time for response. Normally RFPs should have several more, but since this is an ICANN RFP template, I think it is better for ICANN to determine what other T&Cs are required, if any.
I have also added some language that ensures age and gender equity including the inclusion of developing countries. In light of that, I wonder whether 10 countries are sufficient and we may want to increase it to 15 and have at least 5 developing countries included, but I am not sure how much that will affect the budget.
Kim
On 21 Jun 2011, at 18:42, ****wrote:
Dear All, Attached is an initial draft of an RFP for the Consumer Trust research work. I have used a previous ICANN RFP authored by Liz Gasster as an example.
As you will see, the timeline to get this done by our meeting in September is going to be a crunch. So asking that everyone review this at their earliest convenience so we can finalize it and issue.
I also have developed a list of prospective companies for distribution of the RFP. Will be sending that later this morning. Lynn **_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois