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

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at wilmerhale.com
Tue Apr 27 23:00:29 UTC 2010


Could I suggest a compromise?
 
If we are going to record/transcribe in camera discussions, that will create a record for ourselves and future teams.  It may well be that as a result of the discussions with staff we have specific questions that we need/want the staff to respond to in writing.  But we probably won't need written answers to all of the questions we plan to discuss, and we may ask them to respond to entirely different questions in writing.  Given the changes underway at ICANN, and the work load that we are all aware of, I am anxious to use staff time as efficiently as possible.  So, why not say that we may follow up with a request for written answers? 
 
Especially given the news about Doug's departure, I am surprised that Rod is not planning to participate in our discussion with staff.  I would expect that as the chief executive officer he would be keenly interested in a discussion with staff about how ICANN is executing on its commitments.  
 
Best,
 
Becky

________________________________

From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Peter Dengate Thrush
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:50 PM
To: Janis Karklins
Cc: <at-review at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [At-review] Revised staff questions from Becky and Brian


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 question 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; <mailto:at-review 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: <mailto:at-review at icann.org> 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 according 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, as staff is heavily involved in preparations for the Brussels meeting and finalizing the new gTLD DAG4. But staff will do utmost to provide 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: <mailto:at-review at icann.org> 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.com <mailto:postmaster at wilmerhale.com> —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 <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/20100427/ea68d576/attachment.html 


More information about the AT-Review mailing list