[AT-Review] ATRT budget

[Larry Strickling]

I respectfully disagree.  In Brussels, you yourself chose not to participate in the review of the proposals of the various management consultants because you felt that as Board chair, it might not be appropriate for you to be involved in that selection.  Whatever the merits of that view, there is little question that there are very real concerns that apply to the Board's attempting to, or being seen to, intervene to shape or limit the work of the review team.  I understand the Board's valid role in ensuring that the dollars spent are reasonable but I have previously indicated how the Board can (and already should have) resolved that issue without getting involved in intervening in the specific scope of work to be performed.

Your argument that the Board has a role in determining what is called for under the AoC would apply with equal force to myself as the other signatory to the Affirmation.  But rather than turning this into a debate between ICANN and the US over the interpretation of the AoC, it makes much more sense simply to recognize the autonomy of the review team and to allow it to proceed as it best sees fit.  This conclusion is further buttressed by the fact that it has been over four weeks since the review team determined to contract with Berkman and the papers still are not done, thus jeopardizing the team's ability to complete its review in the time allowed under the AoC.  I strongly recommend that we get on with this engagement without further delay.

From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:peter.dengatethrush at icann.org]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 2:19 AM
To: Larry Strickling
Cc: at-review at icann.org
Subject: Re: [AT-Review] ATRT budget

Hi Larry, all

I don't quite understand this approach.
The board's role is to make sure that the review it gets from its independent review team meets ICANN's obligations under the AoC.

The Review Team is accountable to ICANN for the proper conduct of the review.
The board acts as the manager of that accountability, being ultimately responsible for ICANN commitments and duties. Not to hold any of the Review Teams to account for the scope of its review is a breach of the board's duty.

In this case the board WG has asked questions to determine that the proper things are being reviewed, and that their cost is reasonable.

The Berkman scope question is one that also perplexes me a little.

The AoC ( 9.1) commits ICANN to maintaining and improving robust mechanisms for public input, accountability and transparency.
It then specifically commits to:

Continually assessing and improving the board.....
Assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC...
Continually assessing and improving the public input processes...
Continually assessing the public support for ICANN decisions...and
Assessing the PDP.

Obviously, these are all processes, that ICANN has committed to performing.

The review is of the execution of those processes.

At its narrowest, the review needs to ascertain details of the assessment processes put in place to meet those commitments, and then form a view about their efficacy in meeting the stated purposes, which are to have accountable decisions, made in the public interest.

The Board WG's questions include - by what measures will ICANN's own efforts at its assessments be measured?

Take the Board self-assessment as an example.
Its not yet clear by what standard the efficacy of that process will be tested.

In relation to Berkman, its proposal seems directed at none of the questions to be reviewed, but rather seeks to answer its own questions, which it poses in its introduction;

Despite these efforts and improvements, ICANN arguably continues
to have problems making decisions that the global Internet community can support.
These perceived issues involve internal factors - how ICANN's decision-making
mechanisms have developed in response to its own internal processes and external
feedback - and external factors - how stakeholders communicate with ICANN and
respond to subsequent decisions, all of which occur within the context of ICANN's
unique institutional approach. The proposed exploratory study will develop a framework
and methodology to analyze and understand this situation, ideally laying the groundwork
for ICANN to address it realistically and effectively.


Given that the Review is of ICANN performance of its commitment to continually assess and improve itself, its striking that none of the Berkman language is directed at reviewing anything along those lines at  all.

Berkman seems to be rather addressing the issue of "Is ICANN Accountable and if Not, How Could we Make it So". While that is a fascinating study, its not the proper subject of this review.The board questions are based on ensuring that money is spent pursuing the Review goals.

I think the RFP that Berkman answered sets out the questions for review very fairly.

What may have caused the widening away from the topic of review ( "how well is ICANN doing assessing and improving itself on those topics) to the whole topic of "Is ICANN transparent and accountable" are the sets of very general questions posed by the Team to the Community; eg

1.                    Do you think ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders? Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN did not act in an accountable manner?


The Berkman results may nevertheless be very useful to the Review Team if they can be properly integrated into the main thrust of the Review - how well is ICANN doing in continually assessing and improving in the areas it has committed to.

Clearly, if, for example, the enquiry is in to how well ICANN is assessing and improving public support for its decisions, a case study into the decision not to proceed with the EoI might well be useful in that review. What is also clear though, is that Berkman is not doing the Review - having expressly eschewed that task.

Its not clear to me how a review of things that occurred before the AoC can be useful into a review of performance against the AoC commitments. I accept that they might provide a back drop against which an issue can be seen more clearly - but that raises the cost question.

Nor is it clear that the outputs from Berkman are being tailored to fit such a need.

Berkman says it will:
.....develop an exploratory model (or
"framework") intended to help examine the various factors that shape the perceived
legitimacy of ICANN and its decision-making processes and to make visible the interplay
among these variables (such as structure, procedures, information flows, etc.)

That seems to be a different output that assembling cases studies of ICANN performance against commitments.

Likewise
The diagnostic model will include a taxonomy of issues and challenges identified in
phases 1 and 2. Basic categories of the envisioned taxonomy are 1) foundational - based
on the question of legitimacy and the perception that the wrong people are making the
decisions

seems to be a fundamental review of ICANN itself, and its structure - not the subject of review.

Then, having set up questions that are not asked, they propose to answer them:
we will propose a series of concrete, future-oriented recommendations in response
to the challenges and problems identified in the earlier phases of the project

and later, by providing a report

 with a series of working hypotheses that
explain the persistence of the critiques regarding the transparency, efficacy and
accountability of ICANN decision-making processes and provides a series of
recommendations.

So, the question was fairly put to the Team - how is this work related to the Review team's work?

The WG has expressly acknowledged the effort and independence of the ATRT. There is ( very properly) no challenge to the ability of the Team to set up its own measures, use it own tools, employ the contractors of its own choosing etc etc.

Brian's ( very good) response very properly highlights the benefits of case studies to the Review.
I don't think its unfair for the Team's response to the Board WG to also deal with these other features of the Berkman proposal, and to confirm that those things are also sought by the Team, and why.

That will allow the Board WG to make a recommendation, and for this work to begin.


regards



Peter




 On Jul 19, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Larry Strickling 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<mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org> <at-review-bounces at icann.org<mailto:at-review-bounces at icann.org>>
To: briancute at afilias.info<mailto:briancute at afilias.info> <briancute at afilias.info<mailto:briancute at afilias.info>>; wadelman at godaddy.com<mailto:wadelman at godaddy.com> <wadelman at godaddy.com<mailto:wadelman at godaddy.com>>
Cc: at-review at icann.org<mailto:at-review at icann.org> <at-review at icann.org<mailto: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]
Se
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100719/e907d6b2/attachment-0001.html