[Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research

Wed Jun 22 09:17:30 UTC 2011

Dear Lynn,

Also, as discussed, we need to list the interim and final deliverables in
the the RFP (survery for feedback, data, report, etc.).

regards,
Sarmad

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:09 PM, <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:

> agree - will be working on revisions after our internal debrief this
> afternoon.
> Thanks to both of you for reading the draft right away and coming back with
> useful changes to make.
> Lynn
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research
> From: "Dr.Sarmad Hussain" <sarmad at cantab.net>
> Date: Wed, June 22, 2011 1:57 am
> To: "Kim G. von Arx" <kim at vonarx.ca>
> Cc: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois at icann.org>
>
> Thanks Kim.  Range would be good idea, to give, instead of leaving it
> completely open.
>
> regards,
> Sarmad
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Kim G. von Arx <kim at vonarx.ca> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sarmad:
>>
>> I think that is a good point, however, I would suggest that we keep the
>> number of countries blank, but add some language that requires the applicant
>> to support their reasoning and how it will fully encompass a truly global
>> perspective including developing countries, genders, ages, etc.
>> Alternatively, I would suggest we provide a range.
>>
>> Kim
>>
>>
>>  On 21 Jun 2011, at 23:59, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote:
>>
>> Dear Kim and All,
>>
>> I was recently in a discussion at a forum within ICANN, where we were
>> discussing a study which did not get the necessary results and thus failed
>> to help the work being undertaken.  A self-criticism which came out of this
>> discussion was that the group within ICANN provisioning the study did not
>> get involved in enough detail while planning the study.  Thus, I would
>> suggest to be more specific, where we are clear in what we require (this
>> will also help in getting clearer proposals and save re-negotiation time for
>> ambiguous proposals).
>>
>> regards,
>> Sarmad
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Kim G. von Arx <kim at vonarx.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>  Actually, having thought about it, I think we may be better served if
>>> we just simply leave the numbers out and see what the applicants suggest.
>>>
>>> Kim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:54, Kim G. von Arx wrote:
>>>
>>>  I agree with those changes.  Thanks Sarmad.  I am, however, still
>>> concerned about the limit of 10 and 3 respectively as I am concerned that 3
>>> will not fairly canvass the developing countries in the three relevant
>>> regions, i.e., Africa, Asia-Pacific, and South-America.  Therefore, I think
>>> it should, at the very least, be increased to 15 and 5 or even in the 20s.
>>>
>>> Anyway, just my thoughts.
>>>
>>> Kim
>>>
>>>
>>>  On 21 Jun 2011, at 22:47, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Thanks Lynn and Kim.
>>>
>>>  Here is another version of 3.2 incorporating some more of the points.
>>>  I am highlighting changes above those already incorporated by Kim.
>>>
>>> 3.2. The second deliverable is to perform surveys on a global scope in
>>> multiple languages and scripts, compile and analyze the results and
>>> report findings.  A minimum of ten (10) key countries is required and must be
>>> reasonably distributed across countries in the Asia Pacific region, the
>>> Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa and shall include, at least, 3 developing
>>> countries. The surveys must collect a minimum of 100 responses per
>>> country.  Surveys should be conducted in the language that is local for
>>> each country.  A fair and balanced approach must be employed to canvass all
>>> age and gender groups equally.
>>>
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Sarmad
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Lynn Goodendorf <
>>> lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Thanks Dr. Sarmad and Kim.  The info I gathered on cost elements and
>>>> variables indicate that the number of languages carries more incremental
>>>> cost than the number of countries.  However, in order to get a valid sample
>>>> per country, some would be more difficult than others.
>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>> *Sent from my MOTOROLA BRAVO™ on AT&T*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original message-----
>>>>
>>>>   *From: *"Kim G. von Arx" <kim at vonarx.ca>*
>>>> To: *lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com, lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com*
>>>> Cc: *rt4-whois at icann.org*
>>>> Sent: *Wed, Jun 22, 2011 01:35:24 GMT+00:00*
>>>> Subject: *Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research
>>>>
>>>> Hi Lynn:
>>>>
>>>> Great work. I made some track changes in the document. I am not sure if
>>>> we want to include more detailed Terms and Conditions of the RFP, but I
>>>> think that is up to ICANN. I added just two terms and conditions
>>>> obligations: (1) IP assignment - assuming that we want to retain the IP
>>>> rights; and (2) provided a more specific time for response. Normally RFPs
>>>> should have several more, but since this is an ICANN RFP template, I think
>>>> it is better for ICANN to determine what other T&Cs are required, if any.
>>>>
>>>> I have also added some language that ensures age and gender equity
>>>> including the inclusion of developing countries. In light of that, I wonder
>>>> whether 10 countries are sufficient and we may want to increase it to 15 and
>>>> have at least 5 developing countries included, but I am not sure how much
>>>> that will affect the budget.
>>>>
>>>> Kim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On 21 Jun 2011, at 18:42, ****wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Dear All,
>>>> > Attached is an initial draft of an RFP for the Consumer Trust research
>>>> work.
>>>> > I have used a previous ICANN RFP authored by Liz Gasster as an
>>>> example.
>>>> >
>>>> > As you will see, the timeline to get this done by our meeting in
>>>> September is going to
>>>> > be a crunch. So asking that everyone review this at their earliest
>>>> convenience so
>>>> > we can finalize it and issue.
>>>> >
>>>> > I also have developed a list of prospective companies for distribution
>>>> of the RFP.
>>>> > Will be sending that later this morning.
>>>> > Lynn
>>>> > **_______________________________________________
>>>> > Rt4-whois mailing list
>>>> > Rt4-whois at icann.org
>>>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Rt4-whois mailing list
>>>> Rt4-whois at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rt4-whois mailing list
>>> Rt4-whois at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110622/694c780b/attachment.html 