Subject: | [council] Follow up items from GNSO Council Meeting on 24 September |
---|---|
Date: | Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:26:02 +0000 |
From: | Larisa B. Gurnick <[log in to unmask]> |
To: | [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> |
CC: | Jen Wolfe ([log in to unmask]) <[log in to unmask]> |
Dear members of
the GNSO Council,
I understand that
there were some questions raised at your meeting on 24
September in connection with the briefing on the GSNO
Review, and staff would like to provide additional
clarifying information.
Competitive
Bidding Process and Selection of Independent Examiner
In connection
with the open competitive bidding process used to select the
independent examiner, a total of 7 proposals were submitted.
All bids were reviewed and evaluated for all data
responsive to the RFP, not just the low bid. Price was one
of many considerations. Bids received ranged from less than
$50,000 to over $1 million, with the lowest and highest
representing significant outliers. Westlake’s bid pricing
was in the median range when adjusting for the significant
outliers. Once all bids were evaluated, Westlake was
selected as the most qualified consultant relative to, but
not limited to, the following high level selection criteria:
1) Understanding of the assignment
2) Knowledge and expertise
a. Demonstrated experience in conducting
broadly similar examinations
b. Not-for-profit experience
c. Basic knowledge of ICANN
d. Geographic and cultural diversity,
multilingualism, gender balance
e. Suitability of proposed CVs
3) Proposed methodology
a. Work organization, project management
approach, timelines
b. Suitability of tools and methods or
work
c. Clarity of deliverables
4) Flexibility, including but not
limited to meeting the timeline
5) Reference checks
6) Financial value
7) Conflict of Interest
=> Additional
information about the
RFP
=> GNSO Review
FAQs
Staff is
available to provide the GNSO Council a more complete
overview of how the competitive bidding/RFP process
functions, including what information is required to be kept
confidential for the benefit of the process’ integrity.
Review
Methodology
The methodology
used for the GNSO Review followed best practices and
professional standards for independence, proficiency and due
professional care. The current GNSO Review achieved 178
completed 360 Survey responses and 40 one-on-one interviews,
compared with an average of 71 survey responses and 60
interviews for prior Organizational Reviews. Information
was collected through a variety of means – online 360 Survey
with quantitative and qualitative aspects, one-on-one
interviews that resulted in twice as many individuals
interviewed as originally planned, extensive desk review of
documents and in-person observations during three ICANN
meetings. Additionally, Westlake participated in the
majority of the 21 GNSO Review Working Party calls and 23
public sessions held at ICANN meetings and considered
feedback provided by the GNSO Review Working Party as well
as by others through formal public comment process and
other feedback means.
The Independent Examiner provided their rationale in
response to community feedback throughout the process
(for example, see
Comparison Chart)
=> Detailed
information on Review Methodology is included in the
Final Report, Section 3
(pages 24-30).
Thank you for
your continued interest and support of this important
accountability mechanism.
Larisa B. Gurnick
Director, Strategic Initiatives
Mobile: 1 310 383-8995
Skype: larisa.gurnick