[ALAC] (PMX: 8): Re: FW: URS follow-up
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Oct 22 16:15:35 UTC 2012
At 22/10/2012 11:36 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>On 22 October 2012 10:15, Alan Greenberg
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>I think we need to wait for the RFIs to come in.
>At this point, it would appear that little would
>need to be changed to meet the price points.
>Limitations such as NAF suggests in the number of
>complaints per fee sound reasonable to me. There
>have also been comments that requiring electronic
>submission might lower costs and that too sounds
>reasonable. So I see no reason to resist talking.
>It is structural changes that we need to be careful about.
>I agree. Complaints-per-submission and method of submission sound
>more like mechanics than policy and I'm fine with discussing those,
>Indeed, I don't recall that such minutae was even considered by the
>STI as policy. If that was the case, do such non-policy-related
>changes even need to go back to the community? Why not just revise
>them and open a public comment process?
Perhaps if that is all that needs to be changed, a public comment may
be the vehicle. Important to remember that the STI set a $300-500
window. If the prospective bidders can do it for $500, may still be
worth looking at acceptable changes that can get it to approach the
>If there is a review team to monitor the implementation change, it
>certainly demands At-Large involvement.
The concept of an implementation team is a new one that was not
contemplated at the time of the STI. Otherwise, would have doubtless
been suggested then. If a group is now reconvened to make any changes
(whether at the substantive level or process, I would expect an
implementation team to be created to address questions that come up
during implementation, with membership open to those involved in
setting the policy, which I expect to include ALAC.
More information about the ALAC