[AT-Review] some thoughts on RFP

[ZHANG Xinsheng]

Dear all,

 

On the basis of our discussion in the conference call, I would like to share
my further thoughts on the RFP with all of you.

 

I share the views with some of you that the RT might need to study a pack of
specific issues before the publication of the RFP, for instance, the
candidate selection criteria and procedures, budget and financial
requirements, implementation process monitoring and quality control, the
output evaluation standards and procedures, etc. Otherwise, we have reason
to be concerned that if those issues are not appropriately handled but to
make a rush to give birth to the RFP, the working quality of the RT is
somewhat compromised and the credibility of the deliverables will be sort of
weakened. 

 

Second, the aim of the RT from my perspective is to ensure the
accountability and transparency of ICANN processes and procedures. While the
term, quality of decision-making, seems to me is a rather vague one. It
looks that no clear standards and baseline being set for judging whether the
quality is good or bad regarding decision-making. 

 

Lastly, as we all agree, the review process conducted referring to the AOC
9.1 (a…e) is the way we follow.

 

Best regards,

 

Yours,

 

Xinsheng

 

 

  _____  

发件人: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org] 代
表 Brian Cute
发送时间: 2010年5月28日 18:30
收件人: 'Alice Jansen'; at-review at icann.org
主题: [AT-Review] Doodle poll

 

Alice,

 

The next call should be for June 7, not June 6.  Could you make that
correction and reissue the Doodle poll.

 

Regards,

Brian

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100528/ce2a3d3d/attachment.html