[AT-Review] ATRT budget

Sun Jul 18 14:50:54 UTC 2010

Brian

I concur with Larrys response.  I also think Willie's point on this  
series of interactions regarding the meaning of 9.1 being a candidate  
for review itself is on target.
Warren Adelman
President & COO
GoDaddy.com
Sent from the iPhone using
GoDaddy email

On Jul 17, 2010, at 10:16 PM, "Brian Cute" <briancute at afilias.info>  
wrote:

> RT,
>
>
>
> Attached is a draft response to the Board subcommittee’s questions.  
>  I reviewed recordings of ATRT f2f meetings and ATRT documentation t 
> o address the subcommittee’s questions.  I would appreciate your rap 
> id responses/edits to the document so I can reply to the subcommitte 
> e and make any adjustments to the Berkman proposal, if necessary.  P 
> lease respond within 24 hours.  While the subcommittee’s desire to p 
> rovide proper oversight to the review team budget is entirely approp 
> riate, the possibility that this exchange could affect the scope of  
> the ATRT’s already deliberated and agreed upon work program raises v 
> ery 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
> warren at 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>
> Date: Thu, July 15, 2010 7:12 pm
> To: <at-review at 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 th 
> e review team process that satisfy the requirements of the Affirmati 
> on of Commitments.  They also noted their respect for the independen 
> ce of the ATRT and their fiduciary obligation to the Community to en 
> sure, 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 t 
> o have a “management review” or audit performed by the  
> Independent Expert.  Case studies were added to the scope of the Ind 
> ependent Expert.  Why was that done?  [I provided answers to this qu 
> estion and noted that the case studies recommended came from the ATR 
> T’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 consis 
> tent 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 ATR 
> T’s Independent Expert RFP:  “the ATRT is not seeking an audit of  
> whether processes and procedures are in place (i.e., a Sarbanes-Oxle 
> y 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 re 
> view.
>
> -          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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review
>
> <ATRTresponse.doc>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100718/9cf21b66/attachment.html 