[atrt2] Fwd: URGENT: Final Draft RFP

Carlos Raul Gutierrez carlosraul.gutierrez at sutel.go.cr
Sat Jun 29 19:31:49 UTC 2013

El 29/06/2013 10:57, Avri Doria escribió:
> Hi,
>> May we peek at the last version?
> we?  did you mean to just send that note to me.  Or did you mean for it to go to the list?
> In any case, I had sent it before, but here it is again.
> avri
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
>> Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP
>> Date: 28 June 2013 19:22:29 EDT
>> To: ATRT2 <atrt2 at icann.org>
>> Hi,
>> On 28 Jun 2013, at 17:50, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>> Avri, I will let you do the next revision and am attaching the Word document. I don't have the time at the moment.
>>> Alan
>> Alan, you are so very kind.  Thank you ever so much.
>> All,
>> Attached is the RFP V7bis
>> - Based on the last version Alan sent
>> - 3 changes made
>> - Review mode is on.
>> 1. adjusted date for delivery to Sept 20 and dropped one status update.
>> 2. added bullet discussing benchmarking.  In doing so, I do not beleive I put it where suggested, but rather put it as a stand alone bullet.  I just could not get the sentence to work right elsewhere.  I probably misunderstood the placement instructions, so if someone can offer better placement or working, please send text.
>> 3. added amended statement on GAC process issue as sub-bullet 4 of the fourth bullet.
>> avri
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> atrt2 mailing list
>>> atrt2 at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Thank you Avri,

this is certainly a very different document from Alan's initial one. I 
think it is fine and I do not propose any changes in the text. I would 
jut like to leave on record some comments on the expectations I have 
from the expert's work:

1. I worry that others may negatively interpret "earlier"  as a sign of 
delays, unnecessary controls, etc. etc.. Colleagues from GAC clearly 
expressed in Beijing the fact that GAC will never be able to act at the 
same speed as GNSO. So I would expect that the expert would concentrate 
on defining the right moment and the right level of engagement of GAC, 
instead of the point in time only.

2. One of the success factors of the PDP should also be how significant 
and indicative are the public comments received. i.e. do they represent 
  all the different point of views ? do they represent views of all 
stakeholders ? is this currently being considered ? What about minority 
positions? I worry from David Olive's report on public comments, the 
group of issues that did not receive any public comments.

3. the third paragraph in the ANNEX should be turned around into a 
question for the expert to answer: IS *The GNSO PDP an effective, 
accountable and transparent process?*

4. I would expect from an expert to come up with his own recommendations 
on how to improve the different aspects of the PDP

Thank you and have a nice Sunday

Carlos Raul
(out of Newark NJ)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130629/f7af5d00/attachment.html>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list