[AT-Review] ATRT budget

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Thank You Brian,

Some 'first thought*' *very preliminary** and somewhat "knee jerk" reactions
to your email message is to be found inter-spaced in the text below from
me...

I suspect (OK  I "know") I will also react and respond to input from the
rest of the team as each of you read, react and respond...

I also think we all need to discuss our response to the specific questions
raised re scope and interpretation of 9.1 and suggest bellow a call
be convened to perhaps assist us in doing that.

I also suggest we all go back to look over sections 2 'Review Methodology'
which covers some of the autonomy and process options that the community
looked at in the original Public Comments phase of this process and which I
believe has set 'minimum standards and expectations' as well as 3.2 'Budget
Identification' in the  Draft Proposal/ Original Discussion Paper on
Methodology  document
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/affirmation-reviews-draft-proposal-26dec09-en.pdf


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 16 July 2010 12:12, Brian Cute <briancute at afilias.info> wrote:

>  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.
>
<CLO>  Can I just have clarified does this Board Committee  have a formal
role to interact with us on *all our  ATRT matter*s or just on the
matter*of our proposed budge
*t?

> 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:
>
<CLO>  cost reductions are always possible, but of course the "benefit of
such cuts and limitations"  has to be looked at in terms of the work output
quality and timing, and not just in terms of bottom line effect  it also
concerns me that if we had had a clear FIXED budget and
the apparent limitations on any options for modification and exceptions
proposal, relating to additional work deemed by us as needful or
appropriate, AT or before the MdR meeting we would be currently at a very
different point in our work program. Pre MdR we had worked on project
outlines and programs that had obvious costs associated with it and we were
mindful that the type of Independent Expert work we felt was required for
this initial ATRT was going to add exceptional costs;  This did
not suddenly appear as 'new data' or information in Brussels... Sp
personally I believe the meeting you had today *should have been had  right
back at the beginning of our work IF not based on the Public Comment
documentation we should have had a budget that was well planned and provided
for before that.

>
>
> -          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.
>
<CLO>  as stated above of course things can be cost reduced and minimally
staffed WITH the corresponding and predictable effect on work quality
produced and the time taken to do it; We had an aggressive schedule when we
looked at getting this work started immediately after Brussels the effects
of reductions  on any outcomes and product we now get when
combined with cost and staff reductions would I believe safely assume be
considerable and more so now that it would have been  several weeks earlier.
It may even be a matter of if this work can not be done properly it should
not at this time be done at all.  BUT the reason for this needs to be clear
=> insufficient resourcing and facilitation being provided for the task, by
ICANN and NOT a from the Teams desires, design or intentions to produce
an independent, unbiased and highest quality outcome from our work.

> -          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.]
>
<CLO> and the Communities desire to see these matters explored within the
strict guidelines we stated i.e. not a revisiting or decisions but an
analysis of how A&T  works, is perceived to work and can be improved in
ICANN. and Yes I recognize this goes to the questions on our scope of work
raised by the Board Committee bellow...

> -          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.
>
<CLO>  We as a Team have discussed these issues in general terms in a number
of our fora  BUT I would like us as a TEAM to convene, discuss and respond
to these specific questions => perhaps the Board Committee could join us for
a single purpose teleconference to discuss this in a full frank (and yes
fearless) manner as soon as practical/possible.

> -          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.
>
<CLO> Again Yes of course this is possible all SORTS of things are, but
again I need to display my ( and I suspect my communities
serious disappointment that so much time and energy has been wasted IF we
are forced into this 'option'.

>
>
> 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.
>
<CLO> We could spend the small amount of time left with more hands on review
and analysis and community interaction and of course set up for next steps
for further review, analysis and action => but do we have for even that (or
whatever else the Team establishes as an alternate to our preferred and
unfettered options)  budget and resources and access to what we will need
(including to the Board, parts of the Community Staff etc.,) established and
confirmed, and with what independence of use and subject to what controls by
the ICANN Board and Senior management?  There are no doubt many other
options as well but we as a TEAM need to discuss this NOT in my view just
individually interact with the set of questions per se.  We have lost both
time and opportunity with this lack of ability to function in a fully
facilitated and supported manner and we have I believe been seriously
'hobbled' by these matters only being discussed (at this decision level) at
this point (almost mid way through)  as opposed to other earlier 'decision
node points' in our projects processes, especially considering
our relatively short project time line.

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100716/9deda65d/attachment-0001.html