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

[Brian Cute]

If I may, I think that in the moment, the RT members should reflect on the
most constructive way to respond to Rod's email with careful clarification
that the RT members indeed expect to meet with ICANN staff next week and to
receive verbal answers to the questions we have compiled and approved at a
team and to get some document production.  I believe the initial exchanges
with ICANN staff will be critical in achieving meaningful recommendations
from the RT by December as required.  While the substance of Rod's response
raises questions for all of us, the RT need not lose focus on the important
work at hand and the need to get on with it.

 

From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at wilmerhale.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:27 AM
To: at-review at icann.org
Subject: [At-review] FW: List of issues that the A&T RT would like to
discuss with ICANN staff on 5 May

 

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/b9e2c790/attachment.html