<html><head><base href="x-msg://168/"></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>Hi Larry, all</div></div></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div><div>I don't quite understand this approach.</div><div>The board's role is to make sure that the review it gets from its independent review team meets ICANN's obligations under the AoC.</div><div><br></div><div>The Review Team is accountable to ICANN for the proper conduct of the review.</div><div>The board acts as the manager of that accountability, being ultimately responsible for ICANN commitments and duties. Not to hold any of the Review Teams to account for the scope of its review is a breach of the board's duty.</div><div><br></div><div>In this case the board WG has asked questions to determine that the proper things are being reviewed, and that their cost is reasonable.</div><div><br></div><div>The Berkman scope question is one that also perplexes me a little.</div><div><br></div><div>The AoC ( 9.1) commits ICANN to maintaining and improving robust mechanisms for public input, accountability and transparency.</div><div>It then specifically commits to:</div><div><br></div><div>Continually assessing and improving the board.....</div><div>Assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC...</div><div>Continually assessing and improving the public input processes...</div><div>Continually assessing the public support for ICANN decisions...and </div><div>Assessing the PDP.</div><div><br></div><div>Obviously, these are all processes, that ICANN has committed to performing.</div><div><br></div><div>The review is of the execution of those processes.</div><div><br></div><div>At its narrowest, the review needs to ascertain details of the assessment processes put in place to meet those commitments, and then form a view about their efficacy in meeting the stated purposes, which are to have accountable decisions, made in the public interest.</div><div><br></div><div>The Board WG's questions include - by what measures will ICANN's own efforts at its assessments be measured?</div><div><br></div><div>Take the Board self-assessment as an example.</div><div>Its not yet clear by what standard the efficacy of that process will be tested.</div><div><br></div><div>In relation to Berkman, its proposal seems directed at none of the questions to be reviewed, but rather seeks to answer its own questions, which it poses in its introduction;</div><div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">Despite these efforts and improvements, ICANN arguably continues</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">to have problems making decisions that the global Internet community can support.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">These perceived issues involve internal factors – how ICANN’s decision-making</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">mechanisms have developed in response to its own internal processes and external</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">feedback – and external factors – how stakeholders communicate with ICANN and</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">respond to subsequent decisions, all of which occur within the context of ICANN’s</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">unique institutional approach. The proposed exploratory study will develop a framework</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">and methodology to analyze and understand this situation, ideally laying the groundwork</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">for ICANN to address it realistically and effectively.</div></div><div><br></div>
<br><div><div>Given that the Review is of ICANN performance of its commitment to continually assess and improve itself, its striking that none of the Berkman language is directed at reviewing anything along those lines at all.</div><div><br></div><div>Berkman seems to be rather addressing the issue of "Is ICANN Accountable and if Not, How Could we Make it So". While that is a fascinating study, its not the proper subject of this review.The board questions are based on ensuring that money is spent pursuing the Review goals.</div><div><br></div><div>I think the RFP that Berkman answered sets out the questions for review very fairly.</div><div><br></div><div>What may have caused the widening away from the topic of review ( "how well is ICANN doing assessing and improving itself on those topics) to the whole topic of "Is ICANN transparent and accountable" are the sets of very general questions posed by the Team to the Community; eg</div><div><br></div><div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 11px/normal Calibri; ">1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Do you think ICANN is accountable to all stakeholders? Can you identify a specific example(s) when ICANN did not act in an accountable manner?</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The Berkman results may nevertheless be very useful to the Review Team if they can be properly integrated into the main thrust of the Review - how well is ICANN doing in continually assessing and improving in the areas it has committed to.</div><div><br></div><div>Clearly, if, for example, the enquiry is in to how well ICANN is assessing and improving public support for its decisions, a case study into the decision not to proceed with the EoI might well be useful in that review. What is also clear though, is that Berkman is not doing the Review - having expressly eschewed that task.</div><div><br></div><div>Its not clear to me how a review of things that occurred before the AoC can be useful into a review of performance against the AoC commitments. I accept that they might provide a back drop against which an issue can be seen more clearly - but that raises the cost question. </div><div><br></div><div>Nor is it clear that the outputs from Berkman are being tailored to fit such a need.</div><div><br></div><div>Berkman says it will:</div><div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">.....develop an exploratory model (or</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">“framework”) intended to help examine the various factors that shape the perceived</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">legitimacy of ICANN and its decision-making processes and to make visible the interplay</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">among these variables (such as structure, procedures, information flows, etc.)</div></div><div><br></div><div>That seems to be a different output that assembling cases studies of ICANN performance against commitments.</div><div><br></div><div>Likewise</div><div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">The diagnostic model will include a taxonomy of issues and challenges identified in</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">phases 1 and 2. Basic categories of the envisioned taxonomy are 1) foundational – based</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">on the question of legitimacy and the perception that the wrong people are making the</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">decisions</div></div><div><br></div><div>seems to be a fundamental review of ICANN itself, and its structure - not the subject of review.</div><div><br></div><div>Then, having set up questions that are not asked, they propose to answer them:</div><div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">we will propose a series of concrete, future-oriented recommendations in response</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">to the challenges and problems identified in the earlier phases of the project</div></div><div><br></div><div>and later, by providing a report</div><div><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; "> with a series of working hypotheses that</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">explain the persistence of the critiques regarding the transparency, efficacy and</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Times New Roman'; ">accountability of ICANN decision-making processes and provides a series of</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; ">recommendations.</span></div><div><br></div><div>So, the question was fairly put to the Team - how is this work related to the Review team's work?</div><div><br></div><div>The WG has expressly acknowledged the effort and independence of the ATRT. There is ( very properly) no challenge to the ability of the Team to set up its own measures, use it own tools, employ the contractors of its own choosing etc etc. </div><div><br></div><div>Brian's ( very good) response very properly highlights the benefits of case studies to the Review.</div><div>I don't think its unfair for the Team's response to the Board WG to also deal with these other features of the Berkman proposal, and to confirm that those things are also sought by the Team, and why.</div><div><br></div><div>That will allow the Board WG to make a recommendation, and for this work to begin.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>regards</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Peter</div><div> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> On Jul 19, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Larry Strickling wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-US" link="black" vlink="black"><div><font size="2" color="navy" face="Arial">I do not believe it is appropriate for the Board to have or be seen to have any ability to redefine the scope of our work, including the scope of the expert engagement. Its role, if any, is to understand that the price of the effort is reasonable. To that end, it can review the other proposals we received to make that determination quickly and in the affirmative. I think the other questions are inappropriate and I would not even answer them.</font></div><br><div><hr size="2" width="100%" align="center" tabindex="-1"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From</b>:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:at-review-bounces@icann.org" style="color: black; text-decoration: underline; ">at-review-bounces@icann.org</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><<a href="mailto:at-review-bounces@icann.org" style="color: black; text-decoration: underline; ">at-review-bounces@icann.org</a>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><b>To</b>:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:briancute@afilias.info" style="color: black; text-decoration: underline; ">briancute@afilias.info</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><<a href="mailto:briancute@afilias.info" style="color: black; text-decoration: underline; ">briancute@afilias.info</a>>;<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:wadelman@godaddy.com" style="color: black; text-decoration: underline; ">wadelman@godaddy.com</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><<a href="mailto:wadelman@godaddy.com" style="color: black; text-decoration: underline; ">wadelman@godaddy.com</a>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><b>Cc</b>:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:at-review@icann.org" style="color: black; text-decoration: underline; ">at-review@icann.org</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><<a href="mailto:at-review@icann.org" style="color: black; text-decoration: underline; ">at-review@icann.org</a>><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><b>Sent</b>: Sat Jul 17 22:16:54 2010<br><b>Subject</b>: Re: [AT-Review] ATRT budget<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br></font><br></div><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">RT,<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Attached is a draft response to the Board subcommittee’s questions. I reviewed recordings of ATRT f2f meetings and ATRT documentation to address the subcommittee’s questions. I would appreciate your rapid responses/edits to the document so I can reply to the subcommittee and make any adjustments to the Berkman proposal, if necessary. Please respond within 24 hours. While the subcommittee’s desire to provide proper oversight to the review team budget is entirely appropriate, the possibility that this exchange could affect the scope of the ATRT’s already deliberated and agreed upon work program raises very sensitive issues.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Brian<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div><div style="border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-top-width: 1pt; padding-top: 3pt; padding-right: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; ">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; "><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Brian Cute [mailto:briancute@afilias.info]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><b>Se</b></span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></body></html>