[At-review] Draft of questions in advance of F2F in Marina del Rey

[Burr, Becky]

I have attached as a Word document and pasted below, a first cut at
questions/issues for staff in Marina del Rey.  I suspect that we could
profitably spend a lot of time on just a subset of these, but tried to
be more rather than less complete.  Also, I think that there are some
pretty important questions we need to answer soon regarding structure
and participation.  In particular:

* What ICANN staff will be participating in our discussions in Marina
del Rey?  Some of the new hires are not listed on the staff directory -
some key folks located outside of California.  

* Another key issue is how we would like to interact with staff.  As a
large group?  Broken out by department/role?  Any that we want to meet
with individually, either now or later?  What ground rules do we need to
ensure an open dialogue?  

Comments please!

Questions in Preparation for F2F in Marina del Rey

1.  Provide and discuss the ICANN staff org chart - who does what?  What
is the reporting structure?  Where (in the world) do people sit?  How do
key staff members spend their time?  While this seems basic, it is not
well understood by members of the ICANN community.  Moreover, there have
been significant staffing changes in the last few months that it would
be helpful to understand. 

2.  What does the staff view as its key tasks with respect to A&T, and
how is responsibility for those tasks allocated?  

3.  In addition to the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation, what
documents do staff rely on to fulfill ICANN's accountability and
transparency obligations.  Where do the 2008 Management Operating
Principles, the PSC report, other documents fit in?  Are there internal
policies or procedures in place for ensuring that accountability and
transparency issues are considered at appropriate junctures?  How are
accountability and transparency issues included/considered in strategic
planning and budgeting?

4.  One of the challenges for the AT Review Team is to identify metrics
for measuring improvement under the AoC tasks.  What does the staff
suggest?   What should we focus on, what should our priorities be?  For
this first review, what realistically can we measure as accomplishments,
what should we look at as "works in progress"?  With respect to those
works in progress, how should they be measured going forward?

5.  We have reviewed the various comments submitted on the AoC review
process, as well as the staff summary of those comments.  Which points
seem most important/relevant to staff?

6.  What observations can ICANN staff make with respect to progress the
AoC commitment to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public
input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the
outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be
accountable to all stakeholders by?  Any improvements we should pay
particular attention to?  

In addition to general reflections on these issues, the Team seeks staff
views on progress and plans with respect to the following:  

(a) Assessing and improving ICANN Board of Directors (Board).  Have
steps been taken to improve Board performance that may not be apparent
to the community (e.g., training for members).  Are there changes in the
Board selection process, and is sufficient attention given to the ways
in which Board composition meets ICANN's present and future needs?

- Observations on the ways in which staff interacts with Board - has
that changed, is it improving, are there ways in which it can be
improved?

(b) What are the staff views on the way the current accountability
mechanisms work - ombuds, reconsideration, IRP?  What about the various
institutional review processes?  How are consultants selected, terms of
reference set, etc.?  How does staff use the information in these
reviews?

(c) What are the staff observations about the role and effectiveness of
the GAC and its interaction with the Board?  What improvements have
been/are being implemented, and how is that working?  How does staff
communicate with the GAC when it seeks public policy input from the GAC?


(d)  What are the staff's observations about the processes by which
ICANN receives public input?  In general, how would the staff rate
public input?  What improvements have been/are being implemented?  Who
synthesizes, and how is input summarized/communicated to the Board?
There are many sets of public comments that are listed as "awaiting
summary/analysis."  Is that due to a resource issue, to the fact that
the issues have been overtaken by events?  Is there a better way to do
this?  

(e)  What are the staff's observations about the degree to which ICANN's
decisions are embraced, supported and accepted by the public and the
Internet community? 

(f)  Does the staff have views, suggestions of ways in which the policy
development process can facilitate enhanced cross community
deliberations and effective and timely policy development?  What kind of
support does staff provide to the PDP, and how effective is it?  Are
there enough resources to provide necessary support?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100420/72ac33e9/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Document1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 34816 bytes
Desc: Document1.doc
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100420/72ac33e9/attachment.doc