[atrt2] Independent Expert

Jørgen C Abild Andersen jocaan at erst.dk
Sat Jun 8 18:16:08 UTC 2013

Hi Brian.

Here is the spreadsheet with my comments inserted. Further to my comments in the spreadsheet I want to add the following:

1. ICANN Finances.

I can fully support all the remarks made by Lise in her version of the spreadsheet. Because of i.a. the very good reasons provided by Lise it is very important that ATRT2 takes a look into the issues related to ICANN Finances - the whole story around gTLD makes it even more important. On top of all this GAC at the Toronto meeting has explicitly urged ATRT2 to look into these issues. Furthermore see my attached paper "Review of ICANN's financial operations". 

A review in this area is a complicated and comprehensive task (see the last paragraph of Larisa's mail which I attach) which requires the assistance of highly qualified external experts as I assume that this expertise (and the necessary man hours) is not available in our group.

2. Metrics 

I agree with Lise's points. The importance of the metrics issue is evident. But it is is not evident that the relevant metrics should be developed by ATRT2. Instead a recommendation to ICANN could be to develop metrics (and relevant baselines) which can be used to demonstrate that ICANN actually is succesful in implementing the recommendations given by ATRT.

3. Should a contract with an external expert be a small and limited one or a broader one?

I must admit that it came as a great surprise to me when I learned from Denise's mail which I attach that (in practical terms) only 90.000$ is available for consulting/external experts. If my studies of the budgets of the last ATRT has given me the correct picture the expenses on external experts last time was estimated to appr. 266.000$ - almost three times as much as this time (see attached). Taking into account the complicated and very time consuming issues of our review (see e.g. remarks under 1 and Larisa's mail) I find it hard to understand why the budget for this review should be so much smaller and I think that you Brian should discuss this with Fadi/Denise. So I definetely will propose that we go for finding the necessary funding for a broad contract with an external expert which can provide help to us on key issues like ICANN Finances but also can provide assistance in giving a broad and neutral assessment on for example to what extent ICANN has properly implemented the recommendations of ATRT1 which - at least to me - remains rather unclear despite the spreadsheet provided from ICANN Staff and the meeting in LA in the beginning of last month. The initial discussions in WS1 on this show that addressing this issue is certainly not just "a walk in the park". - See also the attached document containing the rationale behind the budget of ATRT1 and the need for hiring external experts.

Enjoy the rest of your week-end

Best regards


-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: atrt2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af Brian Cute
Sendt: 6. juni 2013 00:06
Til: ATRT2
Emne: [atrt2] Independent Expert

Review Team,

To complete the process of determining whether ATRT2 should engage an Independent Expert, we will proceed with a two-step process:

                  Step One:  Final discussion of proposed issues for Independent Expert

On the last full ATRT2 Review Team call, Members who put forward potential issues for Independent Expert work were afforded a minimal amount of time to articulate why their proposed issue were deserving of theengagement of an Independent Expert.  Nor was there an opportunity for other Review Team members to express their views on the candidate issues.

For the next 72 hours (until 10:00p.m. UTC , Saturday), all Review Team members are asked to put their views forward, by email on the ATRT2 email list, concerning the proposed issues and whether ATRT2 should engage an Independent Expert.  Members who offered an issue for consideration are invited to provide justification for their issue(s).  Other Review Team members are invited to support a proposed issue or provide arguments as to why a proposed issue does not merit the work of an Independent Expert. To the extent possible, we do not want this process to become a "beauty contest" so please submit comments that are framed to address only the individual merits of a proposed issue and not a comparison of one proposal to another. The 6 issues under consideration are as follows:

1. Case Studies of PDPs and Processes with regard to ATRT1 advice (Avri) 2. Whistle-blower program - Effectiveness and adherence to standards (Avri) 3. ICANN Finances (Lise) 4. Case study re: effectiveness of PDP process (Alan) 5. Public Interest - ecosystem value chain (Carlos) 6. Metrics (Brian)

(Note that the ATRT2 government representatives are addressing Jorgen's proposed issue of "Outreach" to governments separately and for that reason has been removed from the list of potential Independent Expert issues.)

Falling under Issue #1 above, a number of specific case studies have been recommended (byAvri and identified from review of Public Comments received to date).  When the Doodle poll is circulated, Review Team members who support Issue #1 above will also be asked to identify specific case studies to be undertaken by an Independent Expert from the following list:

1.     New gTLD program

2.     Applicant Support program

3.     ICANN Travel policy

4.     IDN ccTLD PDP

5.     ASO Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IAN

6.     Vertical Integration

7.     Public Interest Commitments

8.     Trademark Clearing House

9.     Board - GAC interaction concerning GAC Advise

10.  External review of the Board

11.  ICANN's relationship with the registrars

12.  Independent assessment of the public comments to avoid self-dealing and post hoc rationalization

13.  Staff interaction and support of business and intellectual property interests

14.  Gaps in stakeholders' presence in ICANN

15.  Cross Community efforts, modalities and success

While all of the issues and potential case studies below may be suitable for review by ATRT2, Members are being asked to identify whether a given issue requires the assistance of anIndependent Expert.  When putting forward your views on the proposed issues, please consider and address the following factors:

-                 whether the work of an Independent Expert on the issue will provide critical benefit to ATRT2 and its recommendations to the ICANN Board;

-                 could the issue be effectively addressed with existing ATRT2 resources;

-                 how significant do you expect this issue to be in terms of impact on ICANN's accountability and transparency;
-                 how many issues could/should an Independent Expert be asked to undertake (time and money are natural constraints);
-                 is the issue one that would need to factor into the ATRT2 recommendations or one that would be a stand-alone analysis that, in parallel, is complementary to the ATRT2's work;

-                 is this issue related to specific mandate of paragraph 9.1 of the Affirmation of Commitments;

Attached for your review are the "1 pager" documents that were submitted as proposed issues.  Also attached is a spreadsheet that you can use to support or oppose a given issue.  Use of the spreadsheet is at your discretion.  Comments in any format are welcome.

Step 2:  Doodle Poll

When the 72 hour period closes, ICANN Staff will circulate a Doodle poll for Review Team members to vote on the issue (or issues) that he or she believes requires the work of an Independent Expert.

Brian, Avri, Lise and Alan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Independent Expert - spreadsheet.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 14147 bytes
Desc: Independent Expert - spreadsheet.xlsx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130608/9c2a51dc/IndependentExpert-spreadsheet.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Finance.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 146432 bytes
Desc: Finance.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130608/9c2a51dc/Finance.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
Subject: [atrt2] ATRT 2 updated timeline and project management observations
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:49:08 -0700
Size: 357297
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130608/9c2a51dc/attachment.mht>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>
Subject: [atrt2] Budget
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:02:26 -0700
Size: 19283
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130608/9c2a51dc/attachment-0001.mht>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: budget-20aug10-en(1).xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 46080 bytes
Desc: budget-20aug10-en(1).xls
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130608/9c2a51dc/budget-20aug10-en1.xls>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: budget-justification-20aug10-en[1].pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 387928 bytes
Desc: budget-justification-20aug10-en[1].pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20130608/9c2a51dc/budget-justification-20aug10-en1.pdf>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list