[atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP
bcute at pir.org
Mon Jul 1 06:44:54 UTC 2013
I support the amendments proposed by Larry and supported by Jorgen. As we discussed, ATRT2 can go into much greater detail with respect to the scope of work and questions to be explored in the interview process and with the selected Independent Expert. With respect to Larry's comment regarding the timeline, we may need to "tighten up" the timeline as suggested. That being said, getting the RFP out today or tomorrow at the latest is important given our overall time constraints.
From: Jørgen C Abild Andersen <jocaan at erst.dk<mailto:jocaan at erst.dk>>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 09:12:03 -0400
To: Larry Strickling <LStrickling at ntia.doc.gov<mailto:LStrickling at ntia.doc.gov>>
Cc: ATRT2 <atrt2 at icann.org<mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP
I fully support Larry's comments (and also Avri's attempts to avoid any potential prejudice in the questions). Larry's proposals for mentioning GAC in the text are very well reflecting the spirit my original proposal but with a much better wording. Many thanks Larry.
Sendt fra min iPad
Den 28/06/2013 kl. 22.04 skrev "Larry Strickling" <LStrickling at ntia.doc.gov<mailto:LStrickling at ntia.doc.gov>>:
I have some comments on the draft document.
First, I think the timeframes do not work well when matched against the schedule we face to complete our work by the end of the year. I think any consultant report, to be helpful to the committee, must be submitted to us in final form no later than September 20, the date now proposed for a status report.
Second, I think it is important that the scope of work include benchmarking against other relevant multistakeholder processes. 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.
Third, notwithstanding that the GAC is one of many stakeholders at ICANN, its positioning vis-à-vis the PDP is complicated by the fact that the bylaws currently contemplate the GAC providing its advice to the Board and not to supporting organizations as they do their work. I strongly agree with Jorgen that some specific mention of at least this aspect of the GAC issue should be included in the RFP and propose a fourth bullet point in the third part of the scope of work headed “provide a critical analysis . . .” as follows: “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.”
Thank you and I hope I am not too late in proposing these changes.
From:atrt2-bounces at icann.org<mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:34 PM
Subject: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP
Attached please find the hopefully final RFP. Before disappearing for the next week, Brian made some edits, one of which removed the explicit reference to the GAC under scope of work. Since he is not here to present his rationale, I have temporarily left in his comment about why he felt strongly that the particular reference should not be included in the RFP.
Partly in response to that, Lise and I, with Avri's agreement included an explicit reference to ICANN ACs and SOs in the Annex description of stakeholders.
In addition to posting this RFP publicly, staff has identified two potential consultants to explicitly be invited to bid, One World Trust and Ken Bour.With this note, I ask staff to explain why they believe that they could meet our needs.
If anyone on the RT has additional suggestions for who to invite, please let us know quickly. The list of those submitting proposals to the ATRT1 competition can be found at
If we are to meet the target issue date of July 1 (next Monday!), we need to finalize everything quickly, so I ask for all comments and suggestions to arrive no later that 12:00 UTC on Friday, June 28.
If there are any crucial edits to them RFP itself, please submit them as soon as possible to allow discussion.
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2 at icann.org<mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>
More information about the atrt2