[atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP

Larry Strickling LStrickling at ntia.doc.gov
Fri Jun 28 20:23:14 UTC 2013

I'm fine with your friendly amendment.

-----Original Message-----
From: atrt2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP
Importance: High


On 28 Jun 2013, at 16:03, Larry Strickling wrote:

> I propose that language be added to include that concept in the last paragraph of the scope of work as follows:  "benchmark the ICANN PDP process against other relevant multistakeholder processes."  We can add this phrase after the parenthetical (See Annex) in that bullet point.

Good addition.

> "to what extent the ICANN bylaw process by which the GAC submits advice to the Board prevents or inhibits the participation of the GAC in the PDP and whether the PDP process could be strengthened by encouraging the submission of views and advice from the GAC and governments earlier in the process."

I am generally comfortable with this addition, however, in order to not prejudice the question, would it be ok to:

substitute "affects positively or negatively" for "prevents or inhibits?"

Just to point out the different perspectives, my current analysis, e.g., would be that by opting no to participate in the full process as other stakeholder and then submitting advice at the end of the process, the GAC actually increases its control over the PDP process.  So while I fervently beleive that the process would be strengthened by earlier GAC participation, I do not agree that they are at all inhibited at this point.



atrt2 mailing list
atrt2 at icann.org

More information about the atrt2 mailing list