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

Mon Apr 26 06:56:05 UTC 2010

Hi

Only a comments to Brian doc, and i try to recover an idea from Fabio about indicators (also appear in Becky doc).

Is important have starting-points indicators (i don't know if have historical info from the indicators that we need, but also could be useful know if now staff have metrics and which metrics they have that could be useful for our work). 

And important is suggest some indicators in the case don't exists to can compare in the future, maybe could be complex to establish specific indicators, but is necessary. 

Erick

El 25/04/2010, a las 10:34, Brian Cute escribió:

> RT team,
>  
> I have created a document that tries to track Warren’s useful outline and borrows much of Becky’s work.  Please review and make edits.  A few thoughts about the questions and document requests. 
>  
> -          The RT will have the ability to ask follow on questions and to ask for documents from the staff after May 4.  It is important that the RT ask for a complete presentation from ICANN staff on May 4 so we can structure our work in a timely manner, but this is not an “all or nothing exercise.”
> -          Emphasis should be placed on a careful tracking Paragraph 9.1 of the AoC.  I have put direct quotes, partial quotes and paraphrasing of AoC elements in the document so please carefully scrutinize those points to ensure accuracy.
> -          ICANN’s performance regarding Accountability and Transparency prior to the AoC is informative to the RT’s work but not the central focus.  The “General Questions” in the document are designed to elicit Staff input on pre-AoC Accountability and Transparency for background purposes.  I have also removed reference to some specific documents and processes.  Not because I  believe they are not relevant.  Rather, because I believe Staff’s responses to open ended questions can be more revealing.
> -           What is critical for the May 4 exchange is that all key ICANN staff be available.
>  
> With regard to which ICANN staff should be made available, I believe that is a decision ultimately for Rod.  In terms of one key staffer to be a point person, I would suggest Doug Brent given his role and length of service.  Other than that, it is up to Staff to organize its response.
>  
> With regard to the Chair for the RT, we need to resolve whether the Chair will be one that must recuse his or herself to ensure neutrality or whether the Chair can participate/advocate in the work and deliberations of the RT.  My view is that, given the relatively small size of the group, and the fact that each participant was selected for their respective experience and expertise, it would be short sighted to insist that the Chair be recused from the RT work.  I would recommend that the Chair’s primary functions be to ensure that the organization of the RT’s work be well managed – essentially that the “trains run on time” and that the Chair should otherwise participate in the RT’s work.  I am interested to hear other views on this question.
>  
> Regards,
> Brian
>  
> From: wadelman at godaddy.com [mailto:wadelman at godaddy.com] 
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 5:38 PM
> To: Burr,Becky; at-review at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [At-review] Draft of questions in advance of F2F in Marina del Rey
>  
> Regarding Becky's suggested questions, I recommend a simpler approach that clarifies what we'll be asking Staff to provide, while ensuring that the focus of the review remains on the ICANN Board.
> 
> 
> First, we should track the road map expressed in Sec. 9.1 of the AoC, and ask Staff to comment on items (a) through (e) as they apply to this RT.  Their comments should include any topics or open questions that were outlined in the December document, along with a summary analysis of public feedback received during the February comment period.  Each topic would end with a brief Q&A before proceeding to the next.
> 
> Secondly, Staff would compile and present any documents resulting from recent review efforts, internal and external, and include an update on the status of their implementation.  We would allow some time for discussion and Q&A, and post the list and supporting documents to the RT Wiki.
> 
> 
> Finally, we would allocate time for a discussion of General Topics, where we can raise questions put forward on the mailing list or omitted from Staff's presentation.
> 
> 
> What are the group's thoughts on this approach? 
> 
> 
> Warren
> 
> Warren Adelman
> President & COO
> GoDaddy.com
> warren at godaddy.com
> tel. (480)505-8835
> fax. (480)275-3990
> mobile.(480)882-8876
> twitter: http://twitter.com/asocialcontract
> http://www.godaddy.com
>  
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [At-review] Draft of questions in advance of F2F in Marina
> del Rey
> From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at wilmerhale.com>
> Date: Fri, April 23, 2010 8:51 am
> To: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at wilmerhale.com>, <at-review at icann.org>
> 
> By the way, I think we should set the AoC as the start date for this discussion on the "what have you improved" questions, and avoid discussions about ancient, or not so ancient, history.  I also think that we may want to acknowledge upfront that the AoC is a fairly recent event, that there has been a lot of change in the period since the AoC was signed, and that we have a realistic view about what progress could have been made during that period.  Accordingly, I would expect a significant part of the discussion to be about establishing a baseline for measuring future improvements and about getting the staff to tell us about their plans for those future improvements. 
>  
> Thoughts?
>  
>  
>  
> From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 11:56 AM
> To: at-review at icann.org
> Subject: [At-review] Draft of questions in advance of F2F in Marina del Rey
> 
> 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?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> At-review mailing list
> At-review at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review
> <Staffquestions.doc>_______________________________________________
> At-review mailing list
> At-review at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100426/1050b269/attachment.html 