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

Wed Apr 28 12:51:02 UTC 2010

I agree with the pragmatic approach proposed by Becky on the question of written answers.

Concerning the representation of the staff at our MdR meeting, I fully agree with Larry's comment, seconded by others: this AoC review is a key period for ICANN and this first meeting with staff is particularly important, so I would have expected to see the involvment of staff at its highest level.

Best,

Olivier
-   

________________________________

	De : at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Brian Cute
	Envoyé : mercredi 28 avril 2010 02:53
	À : 'Burr, Becky'; 'Peter Dengate Thrush'; 'Janis Karklins'
	Cc : at-review at icann.org
	Objet : Re: [At-review] Revised staff questions from Becky and Brian

	This seems reasonable.  My own sense was that we were asking for only verbal responses from Staff and existing documents at the first face-to-face and that written responses to questions could follow afterwards.  There appears to be agreement on this approach.  Of course, the RT should have the flexibility to request written answers to new questions after we have digested the initial information exchange.    

	From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at wilmerhale.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:00 PM
	To: Peter Dengate Thrush; Janis Karklins
	Cc: at-review at icann.org
	Subject: Re: [At-review] Revised staff questions from Becky and Brian

	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; 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 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
		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/20100428/46ba2025/attachment.html 