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

Sun May 30 09:14:42 UTC 2010

Dear RT members,

Regarding the RPF, thank Larry and Fabio for drafting and the clarification
on the conference call. And Thank Cheryl, Willie, Brian, Fabio and others
for your constructive points. 

Some of you raised the purpose of the RFP is to collect proposals. And I
quote from Willie’ e-mail, “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.”, that is also a good one. 

So what I am thinking is that we now have diverse inputs (from staff, SO/AC,
GAC, Board…) defined in the draft Terms of Reference and Methodology. We
may need the candidates to assist us to gather data and do case study under
that wide scope of inputs. But the title of the RFP now is kind of limiting
that possibility. From this angle, why not to modify it with “Request for
Proposals: External Support for A&T Review Process” to give a more clear
goal and position to the candidates and at the same time let us have more
space to process the task. 

Have a nice day.

Best regards,

Sincerely yours,

Xinsheng

  _____  

发件人: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org] 代
表 Willie Currie
发送时间: 2010年5月29日 17:34
抄送: at-review at icann.org
主题: Re: [AT-Review] FW: [spam] some thoughts on RFP

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:

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

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

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.

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

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

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/20100530/7e68d24e/attachment.html 