[atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Jul 2 23:21:57 UTC 2013

It has undergone a review from legal staff and a 
bunch of other things cleaned up. Last I heard 
from Larisa was she and Alice are working  on it 
and that it would be going out as soon as 
possible. She will confirm to the list as soon as 
postings and notifications are complete.

I am attaching the last version I saw, which is 
probably close to what is going out.


At 02/07/2013 06:16 PM, Fiona Alexander wrote:
>Is there an update on the timing of the RFP release?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: atrt2-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian Cute
>Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 2:45 AM
>To: Jørgen C Abild Andersen; Larry Strickling
>Cc: ATRT2
>Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP
>Vice Chairs,
>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.
>Best regards,
>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.
>Best regards
>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
>To: ATRT2
>Subject: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP
>Importance: High
>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>
>atrt2 mailing list
>atrt2 at icann.org
>atrt2 mailing list
>atrt2 at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ATRT2 PDP RFP 1july13 final-ag-clean.docx
Type: application/msword
Size: 33873 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130702/bcecd407/ATRT2PDPRFP1july13final-ag-clean.docx>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list