[At-review] FW: List of issues that the A&T RT would like todiscuss with ICANN staff on 5 May
Becky.Burr at wilmerhale.com
Sat May 1 00:27:49 UTC 2010
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?
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...." :)
At-review mailing list
At-review at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the AT-Review