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

[Willie Currie]

Hi all

I think the amended version of the RFP is fine and propose that we
proceed to publish it as discussed at our teleconference on Thursday.

Willie



Fiona Alexander wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/db4b1eea/attachment.html