[At-review] Suggestions as to Process and Schedule

[Burr, Becky]

I would definitely like input on the staff questions.
 
Do we have any more information on when we might be able to meet with
the community in Brussels?  The time at these meetings fills up very
quickly, so if we do not snag some space now we will likely be out of
luck.  
 
Finally,  strongly agree that we should not get bogged down in
definitions.  

________________________________

From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Brian Cute
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 7:32 PM
To: 'Larry Strickling'; at-review at icann.org
Subject: Re: [At-review] Suggestions as to Process and Schedule



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/20100421/7a937eae/attachment.html