[AT-Review] ATRT budget

Sun Jul 18 23:58:13 UTC 2010

I'm certainly supportive of this approach ( I know hardly a surprise), and I
do thank Brian for going back over the MdR transcripts to (re)show that all
this indeed was discussed then...  SO to this end following input from Fabio
calling for Brian to Diplomatically reply to the Board I think we have a
clear way forward that the majority ( although you coud do a consensus call
to check this)  is supportive of on general text  to reply to the questions
raised to us in the meeting Brian had with the Board SC on budget aspects of
our ATRT work; and I also agree we should not state we will go back to
Berkman as Willie said,  it is not reasonable that we do so, but as Larry
pointed out the Board can easily satisfy itself that we have indeed made the
best choices for the outcome of the project we have undertaken...

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)

On 19 July 2010 00:25, Larry Strickling <Lstrickling at ntia.doc.gov> wrote:

>  I do not believe it is appropriate for the Board to have or be seen to
> have any ability to redefine the scope of our work, including the scope of
> the expert engagement. Its role, if any, is to understand that the price of
> the effort is reasonable. To that end, it can review the other proposals we
> received to make that determination quickly and in the affirmative. I think
> the other questions are inappropriate and I would not even answer them.
>
> ------------------------------
>  *From*: at-review-bounces at icann.org <at-review-bounces at icann.org>
> *To*: briancute at afilias.info <briancute at afilias.info>;
> wadelman at godaddy.com <wadelman at godaddy.com>
> *Cc*: at-review at icann.org <at-review at icann.org>
> *Sent*: Sat Jul 17 22:16:54 2010
>
> *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
> warren at 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 <//briancute at afilias.info>>
> Date: Thu, July 15, 2010 7:12 pm
> To: <at-review at icann.org <//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 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 <//AT-Review at 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/20100719/953c2175/attachment.html 