[At-review] Suggestions as to Process and Schedule

Brian Cute briancute at afilias.info
Wed Apr 21 23:32:04 UTC 2010


The suggestions for next steps have underscored the need for the Review Team
to be efficient in its use of time and resources.  Manal and Fabio's
contributions capture much of the outline for the RT's work.  I agree that
the AoC provides a concrete roadmap for deliverables in section 9.1 and that
the RT need not spend time creating such a roadmap.  

 

The RT should organize its methodology and recommendations around the
specific elements of 9.1 and not bring in additional elements for want of
time.  In that regard, Larry's approach to data collection and schedule is
sensible.  I would add one element that picks up on Warren's points - that
data collection should include each RT member bringing relevant, fact-based
data to the group to include in the review.  These inputs, if done in a
manner that is fact-based should be welcome.

 

With regard to suggestions that the RT develop working definitions of
"accountability," "transparency" and "public interest" I would voice concern
that the RT not get bogged down in these exercises.  Noting that ICANN's
decisions take effect on a global basis, the RT could spend considerable
time trying to develop definitions that are appropriate on that basis.
Rather, I would suggest that a discussion about the "concepts" of
accountability, transparency and public interest is more appropriate.  The
RT could certainly bring existing definitions of "accountability,"
"transparency" and "public interest" into its work from a broad array of
jurisdictions but should do so to establish points of reference for its
work, not single working definitions.

 

The most immediate task would be the development of questions and requests
for information from ICANN staff for our meeting on May 5th and 6th.   Becky
has submitted draft proposed questions to the list.  We should provide edits
and finalize this list expeditiously and provide it to ICANN staff so they
can have ample time to prepare their presentation accordingly.

 

Lastly, my primary concern is the acceptance by the ICANN community and the
public of the RT's recommendations at the end of this exercise.  The RT has
identified the transparency of the group's work as a priority and we should
determine the manner in which we will make some of our work open to the
public before the face-to-face meeting in May, if possible.  The group
should also discuss (as identified in Manal's notes) conflict-of-interest
issues in a manner that facilitates the highest quality of work product and
instills confidence in the community.  

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

From: Larry Strickling [mailto:Lstrickling at ntia.doc.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 4:37 PM
To: at-review at icann.org
Subject: [At-review] Suggestions as to Process and Schedule
Importance: High

 

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/20100421/f8a4fcbb/attachment.html 


More information about the AT-Review mailing list