[At-review] FW: List of issues that the A&T RT would like to discuss with ICANN staff on 5 May

[Burr, Becky]

With the greatest respect, I find this response disturbing.  Apparently,
the ICANN staff is not prepared to enter into a dialogue with us
regarding the substance of our work.  I would have thought that
conversation was an important "modality for interaction" on the review
points, and I am sorry to see adversarial overtones creep in so early in
the process.  

________________________________

From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Rod Beckstrom
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:32 PM
To: Janis Karklins
Cc: Denise Michel; at-review at icann.org; Donna Austin
Subject: Re: [At-review] List of issues that the A&T RT would like to
discuss with ICANN staff on 5 May


Dear Janis, 
 
Thank you for forwarding the initial list of proposed questions under
consideration from your Accountability and Transparency Review Team.  On
behalf of ICANN's Management Team, we welcome the opportunity to work
with you in your consideration of ICANN's Accountability and
Transparency.  We believe that this process should be a meaningful
opportunity for ICANN to demonstrate the high levels of accountability
and transparency already in place, as well as an opportunity to
collaborate in a constructive manner to develop the means by which to
measure effectiveness and reach an even greater level.
 
Thank you also for your clarification and agenda from which we infer
that written answers to the questions are not anticipated and that the
purpose of your sessions in Marina del Rey next week will be focused on:
1) establishing the framework for review, including the development of
standards and benchmarks, 2) creating modalities for interaction on the
review points that you are intending to consider as part of the overall
review, 3) developing the questions/issues that will need to be
considered, and 4)  establishing a methodology to refine requests for
information, This agrees with discussions we have had with Peter Dengate
Thrush on the meeting goals. 
 
In light of the short time period since we have received these
questions, and the somewhat conflicting instructions we received about
Staff's expected role at the meeting next week, we know that you
understand that next week's sessions will be limited in terms of our
ability to respond and appreciate your acknowledgement that this is too
short a timeline for us to provide formal responses.  Since ICANN Staff
will clearly need to provide complete and full written responses on the
record, and noting that those responses will need to be responsive to
the standards for review that have yet to be established, it is my
assumption that Staff will not be expected to provide oral responses to
these questions, during these sessions.  Oral responses, if made during
the session, would likely be incomplete, uneven, and could not be
measured against to-be-determined standards. The result would be to
retard, rather than inform, the group's work. However, I do expect an
active staff role to: a) assist in helping frame the work to be
completed in written responses, b) establish the processes and timelines
for providing those written responses, and c) discuss proposed levels of
resource allocation relating to this review.
 
To further this point, my instructions to Denise Michel (who reports
directly to me as Advisor to the CEO for Transparency and Accountability
and is tasked with leading the staff response and substantive support,)
is for the ICANN Staff to focus on how to: i) discuss the various
modalities for interaction regarding the reviews, ii) provide
clarification of which questions/issues that staff can answer in
writing, as well as beginning consideration of timelines for such
responses, iii) assist the Review Team in developing a methodology to
refine the questions/issues,  and iv) direct or assist the Review Team
in obtaining information from other sources, where the board, advisory
committees, and/or supporting organizations are better sources of
information. 
 
I must emphasize that consideration of the breadth of the anticipated
responses, and the level of resources that will be required to
effectively respond to the questions/issues are important discussion
topics for the interaction with ICANN Staff. Given that ICANN has finite
organizational resources, and that this is one of a number of important
reviews, a schedule will be developed to ensure that ICANN is responsive
to this group's needs and that overall timelines are met. 
 
We also note that processes for disclosure of, and methods for dealing
with potential conflicts of interest (including proposed methods for
withdrawal from participation or abstention on some issues of conflict)
should be pre-requisites to substantively starting the review process
(i.e., prior to establishing standards and questions).  With that in
mind, we think in more in concert with the ICANN model that the
conflicts discussion should be moved to the front of the agenda.
 
Lastly, I have noted from a review of your agenda that you have
scheduled a total of five hours of time with ICANN Management during
your first day.  This includes three hours of time with ICANN Staff for
an open morning session, and two hours of time with ICANN Staff in a
closed afternoon session. Given the role of ICANN Staff at this initial
meeting described above, I would urge you to consider whether the agenda
reflects the actual time required for ICANN Staff participation.
 
Thank you again for the information and clarifications.  Please direct
any responses or questions on the above points to Denise Michel (
Denise.Michel at ICANN.org).  I look forward to speaking with you and the
Review Team next week.  We look forward to participating and assisting
your Review Team and thank you for your significant efforts in moving
this process forward.
 
Warmly, 

Rod Beckstrom



On 4/27/10 9:15 AM, "Janis Karklins" <janis.karklins at icann.org> wrote:



	Dear Rod,
	 
	On behalf of the A&T RT I would like to submit the list of
issues that the members of the Team would like to discuss with the
senior management of ICANN. The Team leaves at your discretion the
decision on which staff members you would like to take with you or
delegate for this interaction. 
	 
	I was mistaken yesterday when I was talking with you about
written response. I misunderstood the discussion during the RT meeting
where the term "to start building material/ documental trace of the work
of the RT" was used. My apologies for confusion.
	RT is not asking written reply to list of question. They are
submitted to allow better preparation for the discussion.
	 
	As you know, the RT is meeting on 5 and 6 May in Marina del Ray
Hotel. The interaction with staff is scheduled on 5 May. The morning
session will be public. The subsequent session will be held in private.
We should work together to set the modalities of the interaction.
	 
	I stand ready to provide further clarifications.
	 
	Best regards
	JK 
	 
	
	


Warmly,

Rod

Rod Beckstrom
President and CEO
ICANN

One World. One Internet. Everyone Connected.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100430/ff2ded94/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT1859574.txt
Url: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100430/ff2ded94/attachment.txt