<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [At-review] Suggestions as to Process and Schedule</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Thanks to everyone for the inputs posted.<BR>
I agree with most of the comments.<BR>
<BR>
The RT should organize its work around the elements of 9.1. I am OK with Larry's view on data collection and schedule.<BR>
<BR>
Concerning definitions, I agree we should not spend much time on them. However, the concept of "accountability" may deserve some time to be defined in our case. As a matter of fact the word "accountability" does not translate into french...<BR>
<BR>
----- Message d'origine -----<BR>
De: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@wilmerhale.com><BR>
À: "briancute@afilias.info" <briancute@afilias.info>; "Larry Strickling" <Lstrickling@ntia.doc.gov>; "at-review@icann.org" <at-review@icann.org><BR>
Env: 22/04/10 02:06<BR>
Objet: Re: [At-review] Suggestions as to Process and Schedule<BR>
<BR>
I would definitely like input on the staff questions.<BR>
<BR>
Do we have any more information on when we might be able to meet with<BR>
the community in Brussels? The time at these meetings fills up very<BR>
quickly, so if we do not snag some space now we will likely be out of<BR>
luck. <BR>
<BR>
Finally, strongly agree that we should not get bogged down in<BR>
definitions. <BR>
<BR>
________________________________<BR>
<BR>
From: at-review-bounces@icann.org [<A HREF="mailto:at-review-bounces@icann.org">mailto:at-review-bounces@icann.org</A>]<BR>
On Behalf Of Brian Cute<BR>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 7:32 PM<BR>
To: 'Larry Strickling'; at-review@icann.org<BR>
Subject: Re: [At-review] Suggestions as to Process and Schedule<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The suggestions for next steps have underscored the need for the Review<BR>
Team to be efficient in its use of time and resources. Manal and<BR>
Fabio's contributions capture much of the outline for the RT's work. I<BR>
agree that the AoC provides a concrete roadmap for deliverables in<BR>
section 9.1 and that the RT need not spend time creating such a roadmap.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The RT should organize its methodology and recommendations around the<BR>
specific elements of 9.1 and not bring in additional elements for want<BR>
of time. In that regard, Larry's approach to data collection and<BR>
schedule is sensible. I would add one element that picks up on Warren's<BR>
points - that data collection should include each RT member bringing<BR>
relevant, fact-based data to the group to include in the review. These<BR>
inputs, if done in a manner that is fact-based should be welcome.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
With regard to suggestions that the RT develop working definitions of<BR>
"accountability," "transparency" and "public interest" I would voice<BR>
concern that the RT not get bogged down in these exercises. Noting that<BR>
ICANN's decisions take effect on a global basis, the RT could spend<BR>
considerable time trying to develop definitions that are appropriate on<BR>
that basis. Rather, I would suggest that a discussion about the<BR>
"concepts" of accountability, transparency and public interest is more<BR>
appropriate. The RT could certainly bring existing definitions of<BR>
"accountability," "transparency" and "public interest" into its work<BR>
from a broad array of jurisdictions but should do so to establish points<BR>
of reference for its work, not single working definitions.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The most immediate task would be the development of questions and<BR>
requests for information from ICANN staff for our meeting on May 5th and<BR>
6th. Becky has submitted draft proposed questions to the list. We<BR>
should provide edits and finalize this list expeditiously and provide it<BR>
to ICANN staff so they can have ample time to prepare their presentation<BR>
accordingly.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Lastly, my primary concern is the acceptance by the ICANN community and<BR>
the public of the RT's recommendations at the end of this exercise. The<BR>
RT has identified the transparency of the group's work as a priority and<BR>
we should determine the manner in which we will make some of our work<BR>
open to the public before the face-to-face meeting in May, if possible.<BR>
The group should also discuss (as identified in Manal's notes)<BR>
conflict-of-interest issues in a manner that facilitates the highest<BR>
quality of work product and instills confidence in the community. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
From: Larry Strickling [<A HREF="mailto:Lstrickling@ntia.doc.gov">mailto:Lstrickling@ntia.doc.gov</A>]<BR>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 4:37 PM<BR>
To: at-review@icann.org<BR>
Subject: [At-review] Suggestions as to Process and Schedule<BR>
Importance: High<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Thanks to everyone for giving so much thought to the team's next steps<BR>
so that we can move forward quickly. I agree in large part with most of<BR>
what has been posted by others. In particular, as Fabio has pointed out,<BR>
that the Affirmation of Commitments provides clear terms of reference<BR>
for the group (i.e., paragraph 9.1 a-e) as well as a clear deliverable<BR>
which is recommendations to the ICANN Board by December 31, 2010. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I would suggest that the group focus its attention on agreeing to the<BR>
methodology and timetable. In that regard, having assimilated others'<BR>
recommendations, I would like to suggest the following approach:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I think we need a three pronged approach to data collection, as follows:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
1. Staff input which should be presented at the May 5-6 meeting in<BR>
Marina del Rey based on a series of questions to be prepared in advance<BR>
by the review team. There can be additional input from the staff as<BR>
needed;<BR>
<BR>
2. A call for public comments - this can be to the general ICANN<BR>
community as well as ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory<BR>
committees; and,<BR>
<BR>
3. A management review by an independent consulting firm.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
If this approach is acceptable, I would further suggest that as a<BR>
starting point the review team needs to develop the following items,<BR>
consistent with paragraph 9.1 a-e:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- A list of initial questions for the staff, prior to Marian<BR>
del Rey meeting (I note that Becky has just circulated a draft set of<BR>
questions);<BR>
<BR>
- A statement of work for a request for proposal (RFP); and,<BR>
<BR>
- Questions to pose to the ICANN community in a public comment<BR>
process;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Following this approach, I propose the following schedule of meetings<BR>
for the review team:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
May 5-6 in Marina del Rey. At this meeting, we would receive staff input<BR>
on questions provided by the review team, we would engage in an initial<BR>
discussion of a statement of work for the management review and of the<BR>
proposed questions for public comment.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Intervening period - evaluation of staff input, statement of work<BR>
finalized and issued and discussion of possible questions for public<BR>
comment<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
June (dates to be confirmed) in Brussels. At this meeting, we would<BR>
finalize questions for the public comment process, invite potential<BR>
consulting firms to present to the group and award contract. Review<BR>
team could present an update (including official announcement of public<BR>
comment process) during ICANN meeting week.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Intervening period - Begin review of public comments received and<BR>
management review by independent consultant underway<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
September (location TBD). At this meeting, we would conduct an initial<BR>
evaluation of public comments and receive the results of consultant<BR>
work.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Intervening period - continued evaluation and begin identifying areas<BR>
for recommendations<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
November (location TBD) - further discussion of record and begin<BR>
drafting recommendations.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Intervening period - drafting of recommendations<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In conjunction with the December ICANN meeting in South America (TBD),<BR>
we would finalize recommendations and perhaps present to ICANN<BR>
stakeholders during the regular meeting.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Open questions to this approach include: how frequently should the group<BR>
meet via teleconference during the intervening periods; how long to<BR>
leave the public comment process open; and, how many total face to face<BR>
meetings are needed (is the five suggested here too many or too few?)<BR>
and their location (should there be some sort of regional rotation?).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
With respect to Fabio's suggestion 2.4 regarding "Follow up?" the<BR>
Affirmation of Commitments envisions this team completing its work by<BR>
December 31, 2010 and it being the job of the next Accountability and<BR>
Transparency review team in 2013 to perform an assessment of the<BR>
implementation of all the different review teams recommendations.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Larry Strickling<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>