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

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Mon May 31 15:39:29 UTC 2010

Dear All ..
On behalf of Brian, as he's facing some technical problems with his outlook and is unable to post to the list, allow me to suggest that we have the RFP signed off by the RT, ask Alice to kindly post it on the ICANN website and ask Larry and Fabio to kindly communicate it with the relevant companies ..
On another note, Brian spoke with Denise Michele and have agreed to create a section for the ATRT, on ICANN's website, that is more visible and accesible from ICANN website's first page ..
Kind Regards


من: at-review-bounces at icann.org بالنيابة عن Willie Currie
تاريخ الإرسال: السبت 29/05/2010 12:36 م
إلى: Fiona Alexander
نسخة: at-review at icann.org
الموضوع: Re: [AT-Review] FW: [spam] some thoughts on RFP

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.


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,





	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,








	???: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org] ?? Brian Cute
	????: 2010?5?28? 18:30
	???: 'Alice Jansen'; at-review at icann.org
	??: [AT-Review] Doodle poll




	The next call should be for June 7, not June 6.  Could you make that correction and reissue the Doodle poll.





	_______________________________________________AT-Review mailing list AT-Review at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review 

More information about the AT-Review mailing list