[At-review] Suggestions as to Process and Schedule

Larry Strickling Lstrickling at ntia.doc.gov
Tue Apr 20 20:37:18 UTC 2010


Thanks to everyone for giving so much thought to the team's next steps so that we can move forward quickly.  I agree in large part with most of what has been posted by others. In particular, as Fabio has pointed out, that the Affirmation of Commitments provides clear terms of reference for the group (i.e., paragraph 9.1 a-e) as well as a clear deliverable which is recommendations to the ICANN Board by December 31, 2010.

I would suggest that the group focus its attention on agreeing to the methodology and timetable.  In that regard, having assimilated others' recommendations, I would like to suggest the following approach:

I think we need a three pronged approach to data collection, as follows:


1.      Staff input which should be presented at the May 5-6 meeting in Marina del Rey based on a series of questions to be prepared in advance by the review team.  There can be additional input from the staff as needed;

2.      A call for public comments - this can be to the general ICANN community as well as ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory committees; and,

3.      A management review by an independent consulting firm.

If this approach is acceptable, I would further suggest that as a starting point the review team needs to develop the following items, consistent with paragraph 9.1 a-e:


-          A list of initial questions for the staff, prior to Marian del Rey meeting (I note that Becky has just circulated a draft set of questions);

-          A statement of work for a request for proposal (RFP); and,

-          Questions to pose to the ICANN community in a public comment process;

Following this approach, I propose the following schedule of meetings for the review team:

May 5-6 in Marina del Rey. At this meeting, we would receive staff input on questions provided by the review team, we would engage in an initial discussion of a statement of work for the management review and of the proposed questions for public comment.

Intervening period - evaluation of staff input, statement of work finalized and issued and discussion of possible questions for public comment

June (dates to be confirmed) in Brussels. At this meeting, we would finalize questions for the public comment process, invite potential consulting firms to present to the group and award contract.  Review team could present an update (including official announcement of public comment process) during ICANN meeting week.

Intervening period - Begin review of public comments received and management review by independent consultant underway

September (location TBD).  At this meeting, we would conduct an initial evaluation of public comments and receive the results of consultant work.

Intervening period - continued evaluation and begin identifying areas for recommendations

November (location TBD) - further discussion of record and begin drafting recommendations.

Intervening period - drafting of recommendations

In conjunction with the December ICANN meeting in South America (TBD), we would finalize recommendations and perhaps present to ICANN stakeholders during the regular meeting.

Open questions to this approach include: how frequently should the group meet via teleconference during the intervening periods; how long to leave the public comment process open; and, how many total face to face meetings are needed (is the five suggested here too many or too few?) and their location (should there be some sort of regional rotation?).

With respect to Fabio's suggestion 2.4 regarding "Follow up?" the Affirmation of Commitments envisions this team completing its work by December 31, 2010 and it being the job of the next Accountability and Transparency review team in 2013 to perform an assessment of the implementation of all the different review teams recommendations.

Larry Strickling



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100420/cbf9f143/attachment.html 


More information about the AT-Review mailing list