<html>
<body>
Danny, <br><br>
I think you are not right. <br>
Do I need to tell you arguments, or you will trust my statement the same
way you want us to trust yours, which is also without arguments?<br><br>
If someone (incl. from the governance caucus) wants to participate and
become part of the solutions, please do so. If they don't, then they can
stay part of the problem, or part of the landscape. <br>
It's very easy to criticize any opinion, it's much more difficult to
actually try to make a difference. <br>
For example, if the term was 30 days, people could have argued, that it's
too long, and ICANN is delaying the review, until it's not needed.
<br><br>
I can rephrase my answer in accordance with what you said, but I think
it's not needed. Now, can we try to be more constructice, and somehow
start to deal with serious issues seriuosly?<br><br>
Veni<br><br>
At 08:05 17-12-05 -0800, Danny Younger wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Robert,<br><br>
If ICANN was serious about conducting a proper search<br>
for a suitable candidate for this job, they wouldn't<br>
have limited a response time to six days from the<br>
announcement date. <br><br>
ICANN Staff has obviously already pre-selected a<br>
certain candidate, knowing that they'll get<br>
pre-determined conclusions reflected in the report<br>
that will be generated.<br><br>
The report will be just as much of a whitewash as was<br>
the independant consultant review of the GNSO Council.<br><br>
It's a rigged process from start to finish.<br><br>
<br>
--- Robert Guerra <rguerra@lists.privaterra.org><br>
wrote:<br><br>
> Of interest to the folks following and involved in<br>
> ICANN....<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for<br>
> GNSO Review<br>
><br>
<a href="http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14dec05.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14dec05.htm</a><br>
> <br>
> </blockquote><br>
<b>1. Introduction<br><br>
</b>1.1. This document should be read in conjunction with the <i>GNSO
Review – Background Information</i> document (found at
<a href="http://www.icann.org/gnso/review-tor-background-04nov05.htm">
http://www.icann.org/gnso/review-tor-background-04nov05.htm</a>). Read
together, the two documents provide the materials necessary to consider
the <i>GNSO Review Terms of Reference (GNSO ToR) </i>which will be
completed in early 2006. The documents reflect detailed consultation
between ICANN Staff, the GNSO Council and between the GNSO Council and
individual members of the ICANN Board.<br><br>
1.2. ICANN now seeks to appoint an independent consultant to undertake
the Review. The information outlined below illustrates the scope of the
work and the selection criteria for evaluators.<br><br>
<b>2. Objectives<br><br>
</b>2.1. The review (among other actions) is designed to lead to
improvements to one of the key policy development supporting
organisations within the ICANN community. The ICANN Board requested a
review of the GNSO in compliance with the ICANN Bylaws and resolved at
its annual general meeting in Vancouver, Canada to formally initiate the
review.<br><br>
2.2. The review is due to begin in early February 2006 and should be
completed by early Q2 2006. A full project timeline will be developed,
but it is anticipated that a key milestone will include the presentation
of a draft report at the Wellington, New Zealand meeting in March
2006.<br><br>
2.3. The evaluation of the GNSO is expected to include face-to-face
interviews, online surveys and desk research using information provided
by the GNSO constituencies. The successful candidate is welcome to
suggest additional forms of soliciting the information. ICANN will
provide to the evaluation team baseline statistics that have been
requested of each of the GNSO constituency chairs. ICANN will also
provide background documentation and reports and access to a range of
historical data.<br><br>
2.4. Evaluators are expected to have detailed knowledge of or similar
experience with policy making in an online environment, most particularly
in relation to Internet governance. <br><br>
<b>3. Tender Scope and Conditions <br><br>
</b>3.1. Given the GNSO Review Terms of Reference found below and
responding specifically to the requests for further information,
applicants should provide:<br><br>
3.1.1. Statement of Suitability. The Statement of Suitability must
include a detailed outline of the applicant’s ability to perform the work
showing past consultancies, research and publications. <br><br>
3.1.2. Work Approach. The Work Approach needs to detail the way in which
the applicant would respond to the Terms of Reference; provide details
about specific skills with interview techniques, data gathering and
report writing. Successful candidate will be required to communicate
through email, conference calls, and video conference over IP. <br><br>
3.1.3. Description of Final Product. Describe, prospectively, the form
and organization of a final report. The report should be suitable for
electronic transmission, i.e., limited file size and widely used format.
<br><br>
3.1.4. Team Curriculum Vitae. The response must include Curriculum Vitae
for the whole team showing each individual’s suitability for the proposed
work. <br><br>
3.1.5. ICANN Contract Compliance: Applicants should warrant that they are
willing to operate under a standard non-disclosure agreement. <br><br>
3.1.6. The proposal should include a work schedule including key
milestone dates and a statement of fees.<br><br>
3.2. Interested applicants should submit preliminary expressions of
interest by email to Kurt Pritz, Vice President, Business Operations (
kurt.pritz@icann.org), and Dr. Liz Williams, Senior Policy Counselor
(liz.williams@icann.org) by Tuesday 20 December 2005. <br>
</body>
</html>