[AT-Review] FW: [spam] some thoughts on RFP

[Fabio Colasanti]

Dear all,

 

I believe it is difficult to agree all the items Xinsheng entions before our
Brussels meeting.   If we did that, we could only publish the RFP towards
the end of June and we could only take a decision on whether to launch the
management review or not (which would need a face to face meeting with at
least a couple of organizations and the full RT) at the September meeting.
By then it would far too late for the management review to be of any use.

 

I would suggest we proceed in the following way:

 

i)                    We agree the RFP by close of day and
publish/distributed it as discussed;

ii)                   We may get firms interested in making a proposal or
not.   In this second case, the procedure stops.

iii)                 If we get the indication than one or more firms are
prepared to come to Brussels to make a presentation, we could start our face
to face meeting in Brussels with the discussion of any material we might
have received.

iv)                 On this occasion, we would agree among ourselves on most
of the items mentioned by Xinsheng.

v)                  We would then meet the firm(s) having previously agreed
the “evaluation criteria” among ourselves (or, more generally, what we are
looking for);

vi)                 After the meeting with the firm(s) we would discuss
whether to proceed or not with the management review.

 

All the best,

 

Fabio

 

 

From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of ZHANG Xinsheng
Sent: 28 May 2010 17:24
To: at-review at icann.org
Cc: guofeng at catr.cn; '???'
Subject: [spam] [AT-Review] some thoughts on RFP

 

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/d674ce37/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00077.txt
Url: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100528/d674ce37/attachment.txt