[atrt2] Request for Proposals
Avri Doria
avri at ella.com
Mon Jul 8 20:56:53 UTC 2013
Hi,
Thanks Brian,
Just wanted to make sure.
avri
On 8 Jul 2013, at 19:14, Brian Cute wrote:
> Avri,
>
> It is not typically the case that ATRT documents are vetted by ICANN
> legal. This being an RFP issued by ICANN, that process is necessary.
>
> Brian
>
> On 7/4/13 11:00 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for all the work in getting this out.
>>
>> And thanks to all of those who worked to reach consensus on this document.
>>
>> I have one question on the nature of reports and such ATRT2 puts out. In
>> this case, the RFP was vetted by legal, and they did make a few edits.
>> Is this the case for all ATRT2 documents or was this exceptional in that
>> it was an ICANN RFP?
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 3 Jul 2013, at 12:06, Alice Jansen wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Review Team Members,
>>>
>>> This is to notify you that the Request for Proposals was posted on the
>>> ICANN website yesterday 2 July 2013:
>>> €
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-02jul13-en.htm
>>> € https://www.icann.org/en/news/rfps/atrt2-01jul13-en.pdf
>>> Please note that the RfP has been distributed to:
>>> € firms that had submitted proposals to the ATRT 1 in 2010-
>>> http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/proposals-evaluation-scorin
>>> g-sheet-19jun10-en.pdf (
>>> € international professional consulting organizations for broad
>>> distribution and posting.
>>> A wiki page has been created
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/Request+for+Proposals and a
>>> caption added to your wiki front page:
>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40176025
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Very best regards
>>>
>>> Alice
>>>
>>> From: "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
>>> Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 1:33 AM
>>> To: "Brian Cute (bcute at pir.org)" <bcute at pir.org>, "Fiona
>>> Asonga (fasonga at kixp.or.ke)" <fasonga at kixp.or.ke>
>>> Cc: "ATRT2 (atrt2 at icann.org)" <atrt2 at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP
>>>
>>> Dear Review Team members,
>>>
>>> Vice Chairs finalized the details of the RFP earlier today please see
>>> attached document. Final RFP will be posted publically via an
>>> announcement on the ICANN web site today. Once this publication takes
>>> place, the following distributions will follow:
>>> € Direct emails to several firms that had submitted proposals to the
>>> ATRT 1 -
>>> http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/proposals-evaluation-scorin
>>> g-sheet-19jun10-en.pdf (Booz Allen Hamilton , Deloitte , Ersoylu
>>> Consulting, Interisle Consulting , One World Trust, PRTM ,The Berkman
>>> Center)
>>> € Direct emails to assorted international professional consulting
>>> organizations for broad distribution and posting.
>>>
>>> Final document and links to public postings will be updated on the ARTR
>>> 2 wiki, once available.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Larisa
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: atrt2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Fiona Alexander
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 3:16 PM
>>> To: Brian Cute
>>> Cc: ATRT2
>>> Subject: Re: [atrt2] URGENT: Final Draft RFP
>>>
>>> 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,
>>> Brian
>>>
>>> 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
>>> Jørgen
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>> 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
>>> <http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/rfp-respondents-evaluation
>>> -19jun10-en.pdf>http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/rfp-respond
>>> ents-evaluation-19jun10-en.pdf .
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> atrt2 mailing list
>>> atrt2 at icann.org<mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> atrt2 mailing list
>>> atrt2 at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> atrt2 mailing list
>>> atrt2 at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> atrt2 mailing list
>>> atrt2 at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> atrt2 mailing list
>> atrt2 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>
> _______________________________________________
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>
More information about the atrt2
mailing list