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

[Fiona Alexander]

Attached is the current draft of the RFP (both a redline and clean version) based on the comments received.



From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Fabio Colasanti
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 12:49 PM
To: at-review at icann.org
Subject: [AT-Review] FW: [spam] some thoughts on RFP

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/20100528/12a9c99e/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATRT RFP draft_v2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 21130 bytes
Desc: ATRT RFP draft_v2.docx
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100528/12a9c99e/attachment.bin 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATRT RFP draft_v2_clean.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 20360 bytes
Desc: ATRT RFP draft_v2_clean.docx
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100528/12a9c99e/attachment-0001.bin