<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Cheryl, all</div></div></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div><div>Thanks - I think it is helpful to look at that (Marco) document - but note that the most expensive consulting option was 120K. However, the whole cost of that option was 323K - not orders of magnitude away from the Team's 373K.</div><div><br></div><div>I think that should help inform the budget discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>I dont think its helpful to criticize the Board WG for delay- they got the Team budget and papers on 12 July, have reviewed those, convened a call, had a productive discussion with Brian and left some clear questions - all before the start of business on 16 July. There is no intention to get anything but the best result.</div><div><br></div><div>There were also preliminary discussions with staff over earlier figures in Brussels.</div><div><br></div><div>I think there are process gaps - between the Marco estimates and what went into the Reviews budget; and between Rod reporting that budget amount to the Team in MdR, and in the Team finalizing its budget recently.</div><div>The Board WG is working on how this can be improved for the other forthcoming review teams.</div><div>It is very alive to the risk of even the appearance of "capture" by controlling the funding.</div>
<div><br></div>I think some clear answers on the questions of scope of the review, the fit within that of the Berkman work, and possible cost reductions will also be promptly processed. <div><br></div><div>The Board WG is very concerned to preserve the independence of the Review Teams; its mission is to ensure that the Review work done ( by all the Teams) actually meets ICANN's contractual commitments in the AoC.</div><div><br></div><div>The WG also feels that it has an obligation to the community to ensure these are done at a reasonable cost.</div><div><br></div><div>I think the Team should be able to answer the questions - and show how the proposed work fits within the scope of the reviews called for, and can be done at a reasonable cost. If not, the Team itself would, I am sure, want to ensure that any changes were made to ensure that the scope was met. </div><div><br></div><div>Personally, I do not favour limiting the scope of the review to only part of the scope called for in the AoC.</div><div>Equally, I would not like to see bandwidth problems caused by attempting anything beyond the scope.</div><div><br></div><div>I'd be happy to join a Team call if the whole team wants to discuss answers, but suggest that would be most productive if a draft set of answers/comments could be circulated first.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>My regards</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Peter</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> <br><div><div>On Jul 16, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Thank You Brian,<div><br><div>Some 'first thought<b>' *very preliminary*</b> and somewhat "knee jerk" reactions to your email message is to be found inter-spaced in the text below from me... </div><div><br>
</div><div>I suspect (OK I "know") I will also react and respond to input from the rest of the team as each of you read, react and respond... </div><div><br></div><div>I also think we all need to discuss our response to the specific questions raised re scope and interpretation of 9.1 and suggest bellow a call be convened to perhaps assist us in doing that.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I also suggest we all go back to look over sections 2 'Review Methodology' which covers some of the autonomy and process options that the community looked at in the original Public Comments phase of this process and which I believe has set 'minimum standards and expectations' as well as 3.2 'Budget Identification' in the Draft Proposal/ Original Discussion Paper on Methodology document <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/affirmation-reviews-draft-proposal-26dec09-en.pdf">https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/affirmation-reviews-draft-proposal-26dec09-en.pdf</a> <br>
<div>
<br clear="all">Cheryl Langdon-Orr<br>(CLO)<br><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 16 July 2010 12:12, Brian Cute <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:briancute@afilias.info" target="_blank">briancute@afilias.info</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><p class="MsoNormal">RT,</p><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal">I had a call with the Board committee that is reviewing the
ATRT proposed budget. Rita Rodin, Dennis Jennings, Katim Touray and Vanda
Scarezini attended from the Board. Peter was also on the call.</p></div></div></blockquote><div><CLO> Can I just have clarified does this Board Committee have a formal role to interact with us on <b>all our ATRT matter</b>s <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"></span>just on the matter<b> of our proposed budge</b>t? </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal">The tone was constructive and the Board members noted their support
for the ATRT’s work and their desire to have recommendations from the review
team process that satisfy the requirements of the Affirmation of
Commitments. They also noted their respect for the independence of the
ATRT and their fiduciary obligation to the Community to ensure, from a
budgetary perspective, that appropriate and justifiable resources are brought
to bear. </p><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal">I explained the ATRT budget decision making process as it
pertains to the scope of work under paragraph 9.1 of the AoC and the decisions
to have face-to-face meetings as well as the RFP process to retain an
Independent Expert.</p><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal">The Board members were concerned about the ATRT budget as
well as the total cost of other reviews (given the size of the ATRT budget) that
are required under the AoC. The Board members asked if cost reductions
were possible particularly with regard to the Independent Expert. The
Board members posed the following questions:</p></div></div></blockquote><div><CLO> cost reductions are always possible, but of course the "benefit of such cuts and limitations" has to be looked at in terms of the work output quality and timing, and not just in terms of bottom line effect it also concerns me that if we had had a clear FIXED budget and the apparent limitations on any options for modification and exceptions proposal, relating to additional work deemed by us as needful or appropriate, AT or before the MdR meeting we would be currently at a very different point in our work program. Pre MdR we had worked on project outlines and programs that had obvious costs associated with it and we were mindful that the type of Independent Expert work we felt was required for this initial ATRT was going to add exceptional costs; This did not suddenly appear as 'new data' or information in Brussels... Sp personally I believe the meeting you had today *should have been had right back at the beginning of our work IF not based on the Public Comment documentation we should have had a budget that was well planned and provided for before that.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span>Is a team of 9 members from the Independent Expert
candidate necessary? Could the number be reduced along with the proposed
cost of the Independent Expert’s work. Perhaps in half?</p><p><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span>It was observed that the unique, individualized
expertise of Independent Expert team members was not clear and that they may be
redundancies.</p></div></div></blockquote><div><CLO> as stated above of course things can be cost reduced and minimally staffed WITH the corresponding and predictable effect on work quality produced and the time taken to do it; We had an aggressive schedule when we looked at getting this work started immediately after Brussels the effects of reductions on any outcomes and product we now get when combined with cost and staff reductions would I believe safely assume be considerable and more so now that it would have been several weeks earlier. It may even be a matter of if this work can not be done properly it should not at this time be done at all. BUT the reason for this needs to be clear => insufficient resourcing and facilitation being provided for the task, by ICANN and NOT a from the Teams desires, design or intentions to produce an independent, unbiased and highest quality outcome from our work.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span>It appeared from the ATRT’s early work that it
intended to have a “management review” or audit performed by the
Independent Expert. Case studies were added to the scope of the
Independent Expert. Why was that done? [I provided answers to this
question and noted that the case studies recommended came from the ATRT’s
interaction with the Community.]</p></div></div></blockquote><div><CLO> and the Communities desire to see these matters explored within the strict guidelines we stated i.e. not a revisiting or decisions but an analysis of how A&T works, is perceived to work and can be improved in ICANN. and Yes I recognize this goes to the questions on our scope of work raised by the Board Committee bellow...</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span>An interpretation question was asked concerning the
scope of paragraph 9.1. One interpretation is that paragraph 9.1 calls
for a review of the “execution of tasks” by ICANN. The ATRT
was asked if the scope of its work for the Independent Expert was consistent
with the execution of tasks or if it go beyond that scope – see the “assessing
and improving” and “assessing” iterations of paragraph 9.1
(a)-(e). </p><p><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span>A question was raised with regard to a quote from the ATRT’s
Independent Expert RFP: “the ATRT is not seeking an audit of
whether processes and procedures are in place (i.e., a Sarbanes-Oxley audit),
but rather a focus on reviewing and assessing the quality of the
decision-making as a result of the processes and procedures.” The
Board members asked whether “assessing the quality of decision-making”
took the scope of work beyond paragraph 9.1 – if a review of the
execution of tasks is the proper orientation of the review.</p></div></div></blockquote><div><CLO> We as a Team have discussed these issues in general terms in a number of our fora BUT I would like us as a TEAM to convene, discuss and respond to these specific questions => perhaps the Board Committee could join us for a single purpose teleconference to discuss this in a full frank (and yes fearless) manner as soon as practical/possible. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span>Given the limited time frame for the review, the
intended scoped and depth of review may prove unwieldy for the ATRT and its
resources. Should the ATRT consider an iterative approach to the review?
Making recommendations about areas that should be subject to further review,
analysis and action, if necessary.</p></div></div></blockquote><div><CLO> Again Yes of course this is possible all SORTS of things are, but again I need to display my ( and I suspect my communities serious disappointment that so much time and energy has been wasted IF we are forced into this 'option'.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal">I noted that while resources and costs of the Independent
Expert could possibly be reduced, that reducing the scope of work would be
problematic – given the requirements of paragraph 9.1.
Nevertheless, please comment on the question of interpretation of paragraph
9.1 and provide feedback to the remaining questions, noting if you see
areas where projected costs could be reduced.</p></div></div></blockquote><div><CLO> We could spend the small amount of time left with more hands on review and analysis and community interaction and of course set up for next steps for further review, analysis and action => but do we have for even that (or whatever else the Team establishes as an alternate to our preferred and unfettered options) budget and resources and access to what we will need (including to the Board, parts of the Community Staff etc.,) established and confirmed, and with what independence of use and subject to what controls by the ICANN Board and Senior management? There are no doubt many other options as well but we as a TEAM need to discuss this NOT in my view just individually interact with the set of questions per se. We have lost both time and opportunity with this lack of ability to function in a fully facilitated and supported manner and we have I believe been seriously 'hobbled' by these matters only being discussed (at this decision level) at this point (almost mid way through) as opposed to other earlier 'decision node points' in our projects processes, especially considering our relatively short project time line.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal">Regards,</p><p class="MsoNormal">Brian</p><div> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
AT-Review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AT-Review@icann.org" target="_blank">AT-Review@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>AT-Review mailing list<br><a href="mailto:AT-Review@icann.org">AT-Review@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>