I agree with the previous comments
that it looks strange to have this in
a charter. It's normal to develop
requirements and evaluate solutions
against the requirements.
Isn't that what the charter says? iCAP is existing work that will be
evaluated against the requirements. The chartes does NOT imply that
iCAP will automatically be the proposed solution. I'd say it's
absolutley legitimate to name in the charter existing work that will
be considered within the group. That's all the charter says, and I
believe it's ok to list work items and goals in the charter.