I'm certainly supportive of this approach ( I know hardly a surprise), and I do thank Brian for going back over the MdR transcripts to (re)show that all this indeed was discussed then... SO to this end following input from Fabio calling for Brian to Diplomatically reply to the Board I think we have a clear way forward that the majority ( although you coud do a consensus call to check this) is supportive of on general text to reply to the questions raised to us in the meeting Brian had with the Board SC on budget aspects of our ATRT work; and I also agree we should not state we will go back to Berkman as Willie said, it is not reasonable that we do so, but as Larry pointed out the Board can easily satisfy itself that we have indeed made the best choices for the outcome of the project we have undertaken...<div>
<br clear="all">Cheryl Langdon-Orr<br>(CLO)<br><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 19 July 2010 00:25, Larry Strickling <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Lstrickling@ntia.doc.gov">Lstrickling@ntia.doc.gov</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="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">
<font face="Tahoma" size="2">
<b>From</b>: <a href="mailto:at-review-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">at-review-bounces@icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:at-review-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">at-review-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<br><b>To</b>: <a href="mailto:briancute@afilias.info" target="_blank">briancute@afilias.info</a> <<a href="mailto:briancute@afilias.info" target="_blank">briancute@afilias.info</a>>; <a href="mailto:wadelman@godaddy.com" target="_blank">wadelman@godaddy.com</a> <<a href="mailto:wadelman@godaddy.com" target="_blank">wadelman@godaddy.com</a>>
<br><b>Cc</b>: <a href="mailto:at-review@icann.org" target="_blank">at-review@icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:at-review@icann.org" target="_blank">at-review@icann.org</a>>
<br><b>Sent</b>: Sat Jul 17 22:16:54 2010<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><b>Subject</b>: Re: [AT-Review] ATRT budget
<br></div></div></font><br></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">RT,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Brian</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt"> Brian Cute
[mailto:<a href="mailto:briancute@afilias.info" target="_blank">briancute@afilias.info</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:wadelman@godaddy.com" target="_blank">wadelman@godaddy.com</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:at-review@icann.org" target="_blank">at-review@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [AT-Review] ATRT budget</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Thanks Warren. In fact, the RT discussed the scope
questions in our meetings in MdR. I am reviewing the recordings now and
will provide a proposed draft response shortly.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Brian</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt">
<a href="mailto:wadelman@godaddy.com" target="_blank">wadelman@godaddy.com</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:wadelman@godaddy.com" target="_blank">wadelman@godaddy.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, July 17, 2010 2:47 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:briancute@afilias.info" target="_blank">briancute@afilias.info</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:at-review@icann.org" target="_blank">at-review@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [AT-Review] ATRT budget</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">Before getting legal teams involved for a review of
AOC clauses, I would suggest we defer to the NTIA as to the intent when
the AOC was drafted and agreed upon with ICANN.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">Warren<br>
<br>
Warren Adelman<br>
President & COO<br>
<a href="http://GoDaddy.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">GoDaddy.com</span></a><br>
<a href="mailto://warren@godaddy.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">warren@godaddy.com</span></a><br>
tel. (480)505-8835<br>
fax. (480)275-3990<br>
mobile.(480)882-8876</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/asocialcontract" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">http://twitter.com/asocialcontract</span></a><br>
<a href="http://www.godaddy.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">http://www.godaddy.com</span></a></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:6.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">-------- Original Message
--------<br>
Subject: [AT-Review] ATRT budget<br>
From: "Brian Cute" <<a href="mailto://briancute@afilias.info" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">briancute@afilias.info</span></a>><br>
Date: Thu, July 15, 2010 7:12 pm<br>
To: <<a href="mailto://at-review@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">at-review@icann.org</span></a>></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">RT,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">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?</span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">It was observed that the unique, individualized expertise of
Independent Expert team members was not clear and that they may be
redundancies.</span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">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.]</span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">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). </span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">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.</span></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"><span>-<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Regards,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Brian</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;color:black">_______________________________________________<br>
AT-Review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto://AT-Review@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">AT-Review@icann.org</span></a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review</span></a></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
AT-Review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AT-Review@icann.org">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>