[AT-Review] ATRT budget
Willie Currie
wcurrie at apc.org
Sun Jul 18 13:58:00 UTC 2010
This is a solid response, Brian.
I suggest removing the following sentence from the text:
The ATRT will contact Berkman to determine if any reductions of head
count are possible without compromising the quality or scope of the
required work.
as I don't think we have the luxury of going back and forth to Berkman
any longer. It should be sufficient that we are satisfied with Berkman's
proposal and its team and the value that one of the world's top
universities can bring to the review. The Board needs to realise that
any further delay jeopardises the review, and that the management of
this issue will itself potentially become subject to the review process.
Willie
Manal Ismail wrote:
>
> Thanks Brian for your time and effort ..
>
> It looks very good to me ..
>
> On a first reading, I've added minor suggestions, attached in track
> changes ..
>
> Will let you know, before the deadline, of any other comments as a
> result of a second reading ..
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> --Manal
>
>
>
> *From:* at-review-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Brian Cute
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 18, 2010 5:17 AM
> *To:* briancute at afilias.info; wadelman at godaddy.com
> *Cc:* at-review at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [AT-Review] ATRT budget
>
>
>
> RT,
>
>
>
> Attached is a draft response to the Board subcommittee’s questions. I
> reviewed recordings of ATRT f2f meetings and ATRT documentation to
> address the subcommittee’s questions. I would appreciate your rapid
> responses/edits to the document so I can reply to the subcommittee and
> make any adjustments to the Berkman proposal, if necessary. Please
> respond within 24 hours. While the subcommittee’s desire to provide
> proper oversight to the review team budget is entirely appropriate,
> the possibility that this exchange could affect the scope of the
> ATRT’s already deliberated and agreed upon work program raises very
> sensitive issues.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Cute [mailto:briancute at afilias.info]
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:30 PM
> *To:* wadelman at godaddy.com
> *Cc:* at-review at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [AT-Review] ATRT budget
>
>
>
> Thanks Warren. In fact, the RT discussed the scope questions in our
> meetings in MdR. I am reviewing the recordings now and will provide a
> proposed draft response shortly.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> *From:* wadelman at godaddy.com [mailto:wadelman at godaddy.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 17, 2010 2:47 PM
> *To:* briancute at afilias.info
> *Cc:* at-review at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [AT-Review] ATRT budget
>
>
>
> Before getting legal teams involved for a review of AOC clauses, I
> would suggest we defer to the NTIA as to the intent when the AOC was
> drafted and agreed upon with ICANN.
>
>
>
> Warren
>
> Warren Adelman
> President & COO
> GoDaddy.com <http://GoDaddy.com>
> warren at godaddy.com <mailto://warren@godaddy.com>
> tel. (480)505-8835
> fax. (480)275-3990
> mobile.(480)882-8876
>
> twitter: http://twitter.com/asocialcontract
> http://www.godaddy.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AT-Review] ATRT budget
> From: "Brian Cute" <briancute at afilias.info
> <mailto://briancute@afilias.info>>
> Date: Thu, July 15, 2010 7:12 pm
> To: <at-review at icann.org <mailto://at-review@icann.org>>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT-Review mailing list
> AT-Review at icann.org <mailto://AT-Review@icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100718/9a5e266a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the AT-Review
mailing list