[NCUC-DISCUSS] Berkman Center to review the proposal to NTIA

[Mueller, Milton L]

Even this is wrong, Stephanie. 
This is an institutional design process that involves a highly complex web of political bargains amongst a global community. You don't have consultants do reviews of that, you ratify that it meets the criteria specified or it doesn't. NTIA should do that. It should not be outsourced. 

Supposed Berkman says "X is wrong." Suppose they somehow come up with something we all overlooked. What then? Do we ramp  up the WG again and fix X? If not, then what is the point of this exercise?   Is it a rubber stamp to put in front of Congress? What is the point of that? 

--MM 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf
> Of Stephanie Perrin
> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 11:53 AM
> To: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> Cc: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Berkman Center to review the proposal to NTIA
> 
> I would have done a call for proposals, and I would have favored in my
> assessment criteria a university consortium from a range of countries that
> had Internet governance experience and strong academic credentials, with
> economic (market) and civil society participation.
> Not that hard to do....they blew it.  The European Commission does this kind
> of tendering all the time.....they would know better, I suspect, than to sole
> source this one.  Too important.
> Not that Berkman is per se bad....just US based and an ICANN regular.
> steph
> 
> On 2016-03-19 11:46, William Drake wrote:
> > Hi Stephanie
> >
> > I don’t know if I’d go as far as to say this ‘ruins' it; Berkman’s done multiple
> reviews for ICANN over the years and they have a lot of people etc. they can
> put on the case, and in any event their input is just that.  But like Avri I did find
> the 'the only capable source’ framing to be a bit much…I’d guess that’s how
> NIST sells contracts for local consumption.
> >
> > Who would you have advised NTIA to have gone with instead?
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >> On Mar 19, 2016, at 16:35, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> Wow.  What BS.  What are the Europeans going to say about this? (let
> >> alone the Chinese.....) How could you take all that work done over the past
> year by a multi-stakeholder organization and ruin it by sole-sourcing to
> Harvard?
> >> Steph
> >>
> >> On 2016-03-19 10:36, avri doria wrote:
> >>> fascinating.
> >>>
> >>>>   the only capable source that can provide an independent review
> >>>> and assessment of a non-profit corporate governance structure
> >>>> designed for a multistakeholder setting
> >>> On 19-Mar-16 10:07, William Drake wrote:
> >>>> May be of interest to some…
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=bfc9cbacbbeb27
> >>>> a0ff16b3bef68c8657&tab=core&_cview=1
> >>>>
> >>>> Bill
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> *************************************************************
> >>>> William J. Drake
> >>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
> >>>>    Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> >>>>    University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch
> >>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com
> >>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> >>>>    www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org> /The Working
> >>>> Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections/ New
> >>>> book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
> >>>>
> *************************************************************
> >>>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss