[AT-Review] comments on Chris' document

[Fabio Colasanti]

Dear all,

here are some comments on the document.

Chris' text is organised along the following structure

1.	Purpose of WG
2.	Specific Areas to be considered
3.	Background research undertaken
3.1	Material examined/inputs received
3.2	WG understanding of state of play in this area
4.	Analysis
4.1	Issues examined per "Area" (as defined under 2)
5.	Conclusions reached
6.	Current mechanisms
7.	Recommendations


A few comments on the structure.

At the moment there might be gaps/overlaps between the remits of the single working groups.   But the four separate documents will eventually be integrated into a single one covering the work of the whole RT.

The key part (of each WG / final) document will be "section 4", the list of issues/problem areas examined.

Section 2 "Specific areas to be considered" should be drafted at the end, as it consists essentially in some logical regrouping of the various issues discussed under 4.   In the case of WG1, I can see a number of issues to be discussed that do not fall within the two areas presently mentioned.

The (many) subsections of section 4 will contain a description of the questions that we have asked ourselves (or that were suggested to us), why they are possibly relevant to Accountability and Transparency issue, our view of their relevance, importance and some outline of the conclusions reached on each one.   We should address here also questions that we consider silly, if they have been put forward in the public comments we have received.   We will say why we consider these issues not to be relevant or important.

Probably, sections 5, 6 and 7 can be merged into one.   We could imagine that this concluding section would have as many parts as the "areas" mentioned under 2.   Each part would present a recapping of the "conclusions" presented under 4.   It would explain why the area is relevant, what is our assessment of the current efforts and our views on whether these efforts would be helped by doing something else/more (i.e. the "recommendations").   There could be several recommendations per 'area"

The final document will probably present eight to ten "areas" to be mentioned under section 2 and easily twenty/thirty "questions/issues" to be listed under section 4.


Comments on the content of the document for WG 1

a)	Do the by-laws, policies or procedures governing board selection by the Nominating Committee produce in practice their stated aims?   i.e. do we have the right "nominated" directors?
-	Are conflicts of interest adequately addressed?  Should parties contracted to ICANN have a member on the Board?   (The issue arose for the RT.)
-	Is there a case for publishing the names of the candidates?   The IETF do publish candidates for official position.

b)	Are directors in a position to effectively discharge their fiduciary obligations?
-	ICANN has been discussing for years the issue of remunerating directors?  Should we be addressing this?
-	What support do directors receive from ICANN's structure to perform their duties?  We have heard that quite a lot is being done.  Do we have a view of its adequacy?

c)	Are the steps put in place to provide transparency of the Board's decision making process perceived by the ICANN community to achieve their stated purpose?   Are these steps considered sufficient by the RT?
-	Publication of briefing material.
-	Report on public comments received (regrouped by main categories of positions/alternative courses of action), extent to which each alternative/course of action was retained or rejected.   A report on the inputs received should be published well ahead of the decision.   At the moment of the decision there should be a supplement indicating the extent to which these inputs were taken into account.
-	Check lists to ensure that that the Board is aware of the existence of i) public policy aspects; ii) impacts on given constituencies.   And that where these aspects/impacts exist, ICANN has received/requested/obtained inputs from GAC (or other bodies) and from the relevant constituencies.   Explanation of the extent to which these inputs could be incorporated into the Board decision.

d)	Staff (this may be treated here or in WG 3). 
-	Is the geographic background of senior ICANN staff sufficiently diversified?  
-	Should there be a rule banning performance related bonus linked to Board decisions being taken within given deadlines?  Nobody should have a financial interest to speed-up the decision making progress.

e)	Budget (if this item is considered relevant/important it should be somewhere, either here or in WG 3).   Revenue enhancing considerations should not play a role in ICANN's decisions.   At the moment, ICANN's budget appears to be more revenue-driven than cost-driven, and its growth has exceeded any equivalent growth in activity/mandate.  While some growth is reasonable to safeguard the organisation against unexpected costs, the growth of ICANN's financial reserves (approximately $50 mio) now looks more than sufficient.   Some external and independent budgetary mechanism might be considered to ensure that revenue does not continually exceed costs.   Until such a mechanism is in place, it should also be possible to identify a surplus that could be used for charitable purposes.  ICANN could indicate publicly what charitable/educational/scientific works it carries out in accordance with its status under California law.

All the best,

Fabio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/msword
Size: 34816 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20100901/6bfc61bc/attachment-0001.dot