[At-review] Revised staff questions from Becky and Brian

Tue Apr 27 21:50:11 UTC 2010

Folks,
I think we are getting a bit tangled up over the written answers thing

I thought we had agreed there should be written answers to written  
questions, as part of the record. I think that's important for  
external optics but more importantly as a resource for the Review  
Team, and in fact for future Teams.

I think the timing of those written answers is causing the concern.

We don't need and cannot expect them for our meeting next week.

As a framework for discussion the questions will be helpful.

I suggest we make clear to staff
1 we expect discussion of questions only next week
2 any existing materials they have that they wish to provide now will  
be gratefully received
3 written answers with supporting docs are expected by (say) mid July.

That date takes into account staff are now inter Alia preparing for  
board retreat in 3 weeks and for Brussels in mid June. You will know  
what a load those meetings are.

You will also know there are some major staff changes underway.

Would this be acceptable to the Team?

Regards

Peter

On 28/04/2010, at 2:05 AM, "Janis Karklins" <janis.karklins at icann.org>  
wrote:

> My apologies for confusion with written answers. I will correct my  
> mistake when will forward the list of question to Rod I about an  
> hour. I will add to Peter’s last version of the list also the questi 
> on which was submitted by Mr. Zhang.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> JK
>
>
>
> From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review- 
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
> Sent: otrdiena, 2010. gada 27. aprīlī 15:02
> To: Lstrickling at ntia.doc.gov; janis.karklins at icann.org; at-review at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [At-review] Revised staff questions from Becky and Brian
>
>
>
> I did not think we were asking for written answers - just docs where  
> relevant -i.e. Policies, etc. No point in written answers in my view.
>
>
>
> From: at-review-bounces at icann.org <at-review-bounces at icann.org>
> To: Janis Karklins <janis.karklins at icann.org>; at-review at icann.org <at-review at icann.org 
> >
> Sent: Tue Apr 27 08:29:55 2010
> Subject: Re: [At-review] Revised staff questions from Becky and Brian
>
> I had not envisioned that we would require written responses to all  
> of our questions.  Perhaps we can talk about the need for that next  
> week.  I do hope that staff will be able to present information  
> responsive to all of these questions next week, regardless whether a  
> written followup is expected or required.  Finally, I am more than a  
> little concerned that Rod will not be present himself and question  
> what could be more important in Washington than his being in Marina  
> del Rey to work with us.  It sends a very bad message to the rest of  
> his staff if he does not take this exercise seriously enough to  
> change his schedule to meet with us.
>
>
>
> From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review- 
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Janis Karklins
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:25 AM
> To: at-review at icann.org
> Cc: 'Marco Lorenzoni'; 'Alice Jansen'
> Subject: Re: [At-review] Revised staff questions from Becky and Brian
>
>
>
> Thank you Becky and Brian for your input.
>
> I intend to pass these question to Rod at the beginning of the  
> working day in LA. I hope that the RT agrees with them.
>
>
>
> On the other subject, I informed Rod about the substance of our  
> discussion yesterday. He responded along the lines:
>
> ·         Staff looks forward to engage with RT.
>
> ·         The senior staff will be assigned to brief the RT accordin 
> g to our whishes.
>
> ·         Rod himself has obligations in DC that week but will join  
> the meeting by telephone for 2 hours or so.
>
> ·         Audio streaming of the RT meeting will be provided
>
> ·         The written answers to the questions may take 4-6 weeks, a 
> s staff is heavily involved in preparations for the Brussels meeting 
>  and finalizing the new gTLD DAG4. But staff will do utmost to provi 
> de answers in the shortest time possible.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> JK
>
>
>
> From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review- 
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
> Sent: otrdiena, 2010. gada 27. aprīlī 0:14
> To: at-review at icann.org
> Subject: [At-review] Revised staff questions from Becky and Brian
>
>
>
> Here is the document that Brian and I revised to group it into the  
> three categories discussed and to trim it a bit.
>
>
>
> B
>
>
>
>
>
> J. Beckwith Burr | WilmerHale
>
> 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
>
> Washington, DC 20006 USA
>
> +1 202 663 6695 (t)
>
> +1 202 663 6363 (f)
>
> becky.burr at wilmerhale.com
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> This email message and any attachments are being sent by Wilmer  
> Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, are confidential, and may be  
> privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us  
> immediately—by replying to this message or by sending an email to postmaster at wilmerhale.c 
> om—and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank 
>  you.
>
>
>
> For more information about WilmerHale, please visit us at http://www.wilmerhale.com 
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100428/836800d3/attachment.html 