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

[Louis Lee]

So considering some points to address Rod's concerns raised in a seemingly defensive manner....

Yes, I agree that we still intend to meet with ICANN Staff.
We will take into consideration that Staff may feel that they have enough time to provide oral responses however incomplete or uneven they may be.
We will be the judge of whether these oral responses will retard or inform.
We appreciate that Staff is providing administrative support, but as Staff's purpose is to carry out the Board's will, review of Staff action is crucial to the review process.  And as such, Staff input in this early stage is important to our work.

...and then maybe something about our confidence in his ability to prioritize Staff's activities to balance their work without jeopardizing the schedule of the review process.

I'm don't know that if it's more productive in this case to respond to Rod on a point-by-point basis or rather as a general message to set the tone of our interaction with Staff.

Other thoughts?

Louie

________________________________________
From: at-review-bounces at icann.org [at-review-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian Cute [briancute at afilias.info]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 9:48 AM
To: 'Burr, Becky'; at-review at icann.org
Subject: Re: [At-review] FW: List of issues that the A&T RT would like to discuss with ICANN staff on 5 May

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.



Click here<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/Gjrc9GBL4trTndxI!oX7UkMPx4DQuTF9a!twTy979gbKuythFepi5qWWDrE0RwvYj89kYqkUD961yubdBaCdqw==> to report this email as spam.