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

[Willie Currie]

Hi all

Xinsheng makes a good point about 'the candidate selection criteria and
procedures, budget and financial requirements, implementation process
monitoring and quality control, the output evaluation standards and
procedures' but these do not need to delay the publication of the RFP. I
support Fabio's suggestion that we address these criteria and procedural
elements in Brussels as it would be easier to discuss them in a
face-to-face meeting.

On the issue of addressing the quality of ICANN decsion-making, I think
Brian's suggestion that we look for 'candidates for case studies' in the
responses to the questions to the community and in our meetings with the
various constituencies in Brussels is a good way of addressing the
quality question. It would enable the management review consultant to
explore concrete examples of ICANN decision-making in practice and
assess what they tell us about the quality ICANN's decision-making
process (how good or bad it is) and thereby help us make a judgment on
ICANN's accountability procedures. I think our decision to remove the
words referring to 'quality' from the RFP should suffice for now and
then we can examine the issue of 'clear standards and baseline being set
for judging whether the quality is good or bad regarding
decision-making', as Xinsheng suggests, in more detail in Brussels. I
think it is too difficult to have such a discussion in a
teleconference.My viewpoint is that it is the RT's responsibility to
make a judgment on the quality of ICANN's decision-making based on the
evidence that the management review consultant gathers.

Best regards

Willie



Fabio Colasanti wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT-Review mailing list
> AT-Review at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100529/95e967f7/attachment.html