Statement of Problem. Describe deficiencies of the system.
Statement of Problem. Occasionally bids on CWPPRA projects may exceed the project cost limits. When bids exceed the project cost limits, the options are:
(a) Option 1: Allow the acceptance period to expire and abandon the project
(b) Option 2: Reject all bids, reduce the scope of the project, and re-advertise
(c) Option 3: Request additional funding from the TC, and subsequently the TF, and award the contract If option 2 or 3 is selected, the resulting cost effectiveness should be evaluated for substantial increases in cost/habit unit and cost/net acre. This will require a review of the change in benefits by the EnvWG. Provisions in bidding procedures by the State of Louisiana allow for acceptance of a bid within a 30-calendar day window after the offer is made. Provisions in bidding procedures by NRCS, under Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) allow for acceptance of a bid for a period of time determined at the time of solicitation. Provisions in bidding procedures by the XXX, under FAR, mandate acceptance of a construction bid within a 30 calendar day window after the offer is made, unless the bidder grants an extension in 30 day increments.
Statement of Problem. The Washington State Legislature has recognized that automobiles are an essential part of our everyday lives. The family car is typically the second largest investment a person owns, the theft of which causes a significant loss and inconvenience to people, imposes financial hardship, and negatively impacts their work, school, and personal activities. Appropriate, meaningful, and proportionate penalties should be imposed on those who steal motor vehicles. King County, Xxxxxx County, and the municipalities therein have experienced an increase in urbanization and population densities resulting in an increase in crime associated with auto theft. This has stretched the resources of individual police department investigative units. Historically, law enforcement efforts focused on auto theft have been predominately conducted by agencies working independently. A multi-jurisdictional effort to handle auto theft investigations has many benefits, including: the more effective use of personnel, improved utilization of funds, reduced duplication of equipment, improved training, development of specialized expertise, and improved information sharing. This results in improved services for all participating jurisdictions and increased safety for the communities they serve through improved auto theft prosecution.
Statement of Problem. The Washington State Legislature recognized that automobiles are an essential part of our everyday lives in passing the Washington Auto Theft Prevention Act in 2007. The family car is typically the second largest investment a person owns, the theft of which causes a significant loss and inconvenience to people, imposes financial hardship, and negatively impacts their work, school, and personal activities. Appropriate, meaningful, and proportionate penalties should be imposed on those who steal motor vehicles. King County, Xxxxxx County, and the municipalities therein have experienced increases to urbanization and population densities resulting in a rise in crime associated with auto theft. This increase has stretched the resources of individual police department investigative units. Historically, law enforcement efforts focused on auto theft were predominately conducted by agencies working independently. A multi-jurisdictional approach to auto theft investigations has many benefits, including: the more effective use of personnel, improved utilization of funds, reduced duplication of equipment, improved training, development of specialized expertise, and improved information sharing. This approach, such as the one detailed in this Agreement, results in improved services for all participating jurisdictions and increase safety for the communities they serve through improved auto theft prosecution.
Statement of Problem. The Internet community frequently voices concern to ICANN about malicious conduct and, in particular, the extent to which these attacks take advantage of domain registration and name resolution services. Consumers, law enforcement, representatives from government and others are asking ICANN, its registries and registrars to monitor the increasing levels of malicious conduct and, when appropriate, take reasonable steps to detect, block and mitigate such conduct. ICANN and its registrars are often viewed by the public as the key to successfully resolving malicious conduct because of ICANN’s contractual relationships with registrars and registrars’ direct customer relationships with certain registrants who misuse the DNS. It would be difficult to define precise rules to govern what actions all registrars should have to take in response to every complaint about malicious conduct involving use of a domain name, but as a first step registrars could be required to be responsible for investigating and reporting back on its handling of credible reports about malicious conduct. Incorporate a provision in the RAA establishing a duty of registrars to investigate and report back to ICANN on what actions the registrar has taken in response to reports received from a credible third‐party demonstrating illegal malicious conduct involving domain names.
Statement of Problem. RAA Section
Statement of Problem. RAA Section 5.6 requires three arbitrators. The process to select three arbitrators is time consuming and expensive for all parties. The parties may be better served by the selection or appointment of one arbitrator.
Statement of Problem. The unauthorized access to registrant account data maintained by registrars has resulted in malicious activity such as unauthorized changes to DNS records and redirection of traffic to a domain. When unauthorized access or a breach of privacy of registrant data has been discovered, a registrar currently has no obligation to notify ICANN and the affected registrants. The RAA should be amended to require timely notification to ICANN and the affected registrants in these circumstances.
Statement of Problem. The process followed to consider an application for accreditation includes requiring that certain qualifications be met and, as part of the application process, ICANN conducts various background investigations into the entity and its principal owners, partners and managers. When an applicant appears to be poorly suited for accreditation purposes, it is encouraged to withdraw the application or to change the underlying factors until it meets the requisite qualifications. An entity that bypasses this process by purchasing a previously approved entity, can function with the ICANN accreditation and hold itself out in the marketplace as though it had met all of the qualifications. In fact, there are companies that market existing accredited registrars to other entities for this purpose. (RegisterFly acquired its accreditation in this manner.) Since ICANN approves companies, not individuals, a company with a new owner is still the entity that had been approved; hence additional contractual terms might be required to impose conditions on new owners. • Assuring that all entities doing business as ICANN accredited registrars meet the same minimum requirements will promote stability. • Registrants can be assured that a registrar claiming to be ICANN accredited has met the minimum requirements. • Placing conditions on purchases of accredited entities could delay or inhibit otherwise acceptable sales. • Such restrictions could reduce the value of a registrar entity in the marketplace.
Statement of Problem. NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY PROGRAM
