Stephanie, Now that staff has spoken on the selection process, my opinion is that we let that issue be put to rest. What we do have is the Westlake Report and a general feeling (from reading it) that it leaves a lot to be desired as a basis for any top-down ICANN board action. My personal position here is to caution the Board to treat the report simply as food for thought, and not act based upon it. I caution the rest of the ICANN constituencies treat it the same way. My view is that it is tactically unwise to slice and dice pieces of it looking for things we like, or don't like, and make proposals to the board. That is liable to be taken as more legitimation of the report that it deserves. I would urge us to say "/Okay, one more document for us to think about, as we explore a bottom up process of proposed revisions to the GNSO/". As well, we might want to go slow since ICANN is in the midst of other major disruptive (positive or negative) activities around the IANA transition, the accountability issue, WhoIS privacy, new gTLDs, etc., and those will likely take centre stage for the next while. Sam Lanfranco, Chair NPOC Policy Committee On 28/09/2015 6:29 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > For those who had questions re Westlake and the bidding process, it > was raised at GNSO. Here is the answer. > Stephanie Perrin > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > 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 > <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22apr14-en.htm> > > => GNSO Review FAQs <https://community.icann.org/x/zbXhAg> > > 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, seeComparison Chart > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56136596/GNSO%20Review%20Recommendations%20-%20changes%20from%20Draft%20to%20Final%20Report.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1443222114000&api=v2>) > > => Detailed information on Review Methodology is included in the Final > Report > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf>, > 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 > > > -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: [log in to unmask] Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852