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

Tue Apr 27 23:44:51 UTC 2010

It's acceptable as a plan, from my point of view Peter, but I do wonder how
much effort will actually *need to go into* any creation of new
docs, supporting information etc., as part of the written record of the
responses to the questions with notice we have now provided (as outlined in
your framework point 2?   However I guess we will see when we see...  I'd
have hoped that for many of the questions posted there would/should be
either standard operational procedures in place OR a quick recognition of
the need for something to be done or formalized to ensure any desired change
in culture or repair of oversight...  That said Becky's compromise  seems
like a good way forward where we (in the interim for our reporting use)
create from records/transcript of the In camera session  what we need to get
out as soon as practical and that that can in turn be supplemented by any
written materials (replies and references / support  documents)  that staff
do have time to prepare and lodge to be part of the public record.  SO
perhaps start  the MdR reporting  in the way Becky proposes and move as far
into Peters proposed plan as is practical...

My comments on expectations of the CEO's involvement have been sent to list
under separate cover.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)

On 28 April 2010 07:50, Peter Dengate Thrush
<peter.dengatethrush at icann.org>wrote:

> 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 t 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;
> <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:* <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:* <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—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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/db9d895d/attachment.html 