[AT-Review] ATRT budget

[Brian Cute]

RT,

 

I had a call with the Board committee that is reviewing the ATRT proposed
budget.  Rita Rodin, Dennis Jennings, Katim Touray and Vanda Scarezini
attended from the Board.  Peter was also on the call.

 

The tone was constructive and the Board members noted their support for the
ATRT's work and their desire to have recommendations from the review team
process that satisfy the requirements of the Affirmation of Commitments.
They also noted their respect for the independence of the ATRT and their
fiduciary obligation to the Community to ensure, from a budgetary
perspective, that appropriate and justifiable resources are brought to bear.


 

I explained the ATRT budget decision making process as it pertains to the
scope of work under paragraph 9.1 of the AoC and the decisions to have
face-to-face meetings as well as the RFP process to retain an Independent
Expert.

 

The Board members were concerned about the ATRT budget as well as the total
cost of other reviews (given the size of the ATRT budget) that are required
under the AoC.  The Board members asked if cost reductions were possible
particularly with regard to the Independent Expert.  The Board members posed
the following questions:

 

-          Is a team of 9 members from the Independent Expert candidate
necessary?  Could the number be reduced along with the proposed cost of the
Independent Expert's work.  Perhaps in half?

-          It was observed that the unique, individualized expertise of
Independent Expert team members was not clear and that they may be
redundancies.

-          It appeared from the ATRT's early work that it intended to have a
"management review" or audit performed by the Independent Expert.  Case
studies were added to the scope of the Independent Expert.  Why was that
done?  [I provided answers to this question and noted that the case studies
recommended came from the ATRT's interaction with the Community.]

-          An interpretation question was asked concerning the scope of
paragraph 9.1.  One interpretation is that paragraph 9.1 calls for a review
of the "execution of tasks" by ICANN.  The ATRT was asked if the scope of
its work for the Independent Expert was consistent with the execution of
tasks or if it go beyond that scope - see the "assessing and improving" and
"assessing" iterations of paragraph 9.1 (a)-(e).   

-          A question was raised with regard to a quote from the ATRT's
Independent Expert RFP:  "the ATRT is not seeking an audit of whether
processes and procedures are in place (i.e., a Sarbanes-Oxley audit), but
rather a focus on reviewing and assessing the quality of the decision-making
as a result of the processes and procedures."  The Board members asked
whether "assessing the quality of decision-making" took the scope of work
beyond paragraph 9.1 - if a review of the execution of tasks is the proper
orientation of the review.

-          Given the limited time frame for the review, the intended scoped
and depth of review may prove unwieldy for the ATRT and its resources.
Should the ATRT consider an iterative approach to the review?  Making
recommendations about areas that should be subject to further review,
analysis and action, if necessary.

 

I noted that while resources and costs of the Independent Expert could
possibly be reduced, that reducing the scope of work would be problematic -
given the requirements of paragraph 9.1.  Nevertheless, please comment on
the question of interpretation of paragraph 9.1  and provide feedback to the
remaining questions, noting if you see areas where projected costs could be
reduced.

 

Regards,

Brian

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100715/6d33d66e/attachment.html