[At-review] FW: List of issues that the A&T RT would like todiscuss with ICANN staff on 5 May

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Absolutely!  (or why do I spend more time working in my volunteer role(s)
within ICANN than I do for my own company 2 hrs of my Sat so far has
been spent with ICANN staff in one way or other so far today )...

This process  MUST work and this RT has to find/use ways to make our role in
this AoC Review be as successful and  trusted by all established measures
and expectations, both internal to ICANN and its community as well as
external as it possibly can be...

So to repeat Brian again =>  "...the RT need not lose focus on the important
work at hand and the need to get on with it."


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 1 May 2010 10:27, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at wilmerhale.com> wrote:

> We need to stay above this and continue to communicate that we will not buy
> into or contribute to an "us" vs. "Them" approach. We all want ICANN to
> survive and thrive.
>
> ------------------------------
>  *From*: at-review-bounces at icann.org <at-review-bounces at icann.org>
> *To*: at-review at icann.org <at-review at icann.org>
> *Sent*: Fri Apr 30 19:54:35 2010
> *Subject*: Re: [At-review] FW: List of issues that the A&T RT would like
> todiscuss with ICANN staff on 5 May
>
> Let's ensure we have some meaningful time in our Agenda / Schedule in MdR
> to explore some of this within the RT (this is a case for in camera/closed
> committee discussion in my view BTW) in a round table format...
>
> But I do (whilst holding considerable issues  that I would like clarified /
> modified or established regarding our most recent communications around  the
> plans and intent for this very important first F2F meeting or the RT with
> Staff) want to echo  something Brian said in particular  i.e. "...the RT
> need not lose focus on the important work at hand and the need to get on
> with it."
>
> Then regarding the point by point approach Louie raised,  I to am uncertain
> about the benefits of responding to such correspondence point by point per
> se, but I *do* agree with the approach (list)  he raises and perhaps
>  something along those lines could be 'made public' obvious to all Staff as
> we prep to and meet with them in MdR... i.e.
>
>  "Yes,  we still intend to meet with ICANN Staff.
>>
>>
>
> We will take into consideration that Staff may feel that they DON'T  have
>> enough time to provide oral responses however incomplete or uneven they may
>> be.
>
>
>
> We will be the judge of whether these oral responses will retard or inform.
>
>
>
> We appreciate that Staff is providing administrative support, but as
>> Staff's purpose is to carry out the Board's will, review of Staff action is
>> crucial to the review process.  And as such, Staff input in this early stage
>> is important to our work.
>
> As a way to clearly establish our expectations and mandate as the RT on
> this AoC review
>
> Other thoughts / comments?
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> (CLO)
>
>
>
> On 1 May 2010 05:01, Louis Lee <louie at equinix.com> wrote:
>
>> Um...sorry about my proofreading today....
>>
>> > We will take into consideration that Staff may feel that they
>> > have enough time to provide oral responses however incomplete
>> > or uneven they may be.
>>
>> should be "...that they DON'T have enough time..."
>>
>> > I'm don't know that if it's more productive in this case to respond
>> > to Rod on a point-by-point basis or rather as a general message
>> > to set the tone of our interaction with Staff.
>>
>> "I don't know...."  (I was gonna say "I'm uncertain...." :)
>>
>> Louie
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20100501/2704f089/attachment.html