Recommendation task 5.3.1 (ALAC and staff should develop an annual support agreement)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Olof Nordling
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 5:00 AM
To: Seth Greene; Samantha Eisner
Cc: Heidi Ullrich
Subject: RE: Improvements question from the ALAC
Seth, Sam,
Apologies for late response – this must have slipped into a crack (in my mind) or so…
Anyway, FWIW – I do agree with Sam’s assessment, fully.
Thanks
Olof
From: Seth Greene
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 9:28 PM
To: Samantha Eisner
Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olof Nordling
Subject: RE: Improvements question from the ALAC
Thank you, Sam.
I'll await word from Olof.
Thanks,
Seth
______
Seth Greene
At-Large Improvements Project Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: + 1 (212) 662-7723
E-mail: seth.greene@icann.org
From: Samantha Eisner
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 2:46 PM
To: Seth Greene
Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olof Nordling
Subject: Re: Improvements question from the ALAC
I think that Olof’s input is necessary here as well. The issue as I understand it is:
- WG recommends the negotiation of an annual support agreement with ICANN staff, setting out agreed expectations and performance indicators.
- Board receives the report with this recommendation, and the SIC approves an implementation plan that does not specifically call for the annual support agreement to be created.
- The ALAC believes that the intention behind this recommendation has been met through increased dialogue and communication.
Off the top of my head, I don’t think that its necessary to negotiate a support agreement just for the fact of going through the exercise. However, I think that it would be important to clearly note that this recommendation is NOT being implemented to letter because of the intervening work, and provide support for that conclusion. We should have documentation of how each of the recommendations was fulfilled so that the Board can evaluate in approving the close of the implementation work.
Olof – do you agree with the above assessment, or do you recommend a different way forward?
I don’t think that I’d have much more to add on this point in a discussion with the group – this isn’t necessarily a legal issue.
Thanks,
Sam
On 2/18/11 2:55 AM, "Seth Greene" <Seth.Greene@icann.org> wrote:
Hi, Sam,
At-Large Improvements WT C has asked me to refer the below question to you. Would you kindly get back to Heidi and me with your answer? In addition, if you’d like, you’re welcome to discuss this briefly with WT C, including its ALAC members, at the next WT meeting on Wednesday, 2 March, at 19:30 UTC.
The question
The Final Report of the ALAC Review Working Group on ALAC Improvements <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/alac/final-report-alac-review-09jun09-en.pdf> recommends that the ALAC and staff develop an annual support agreement (see p. 20, Recommendation 6).
However, both the ALAC and WT C see the purpose of this recommendation – it would contribute to “improving planning, accountability, and transparency within At-Large” – as no longer a need. Therefore, they would like not to bother implementing this recommendation.
The question: Is the ALAC allowed not to implement a recommendation from the Final Report <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/alac/final-report-alac-review-09jun09-en.pdf> that it considers no longer needed?
Additional information from the ALAC and WT C
At the time of the ALAC Review, the ALAC was largely in the dark regarding its own annual budgeting, including the budgeting of staff support. Today, that situation has largely changed, and the ALAC is kept apprised of what resources cost, what can be offered to it and not, etc.
In addition, the continued improvement in the relationship between the ALAC and staff (called for in the Final Report <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/alac/final-report-alac-review-09jun09-en.pdf> , p. 11) – that is, the At-Large staff, Policy staff, and the upper management of both -- has occurred to the ALAC’s full satisfaction.
The most specific intent of the recommendation was to ensure that the loss of a staff member would not affect the ALAC’s budget – i.e., that the staff member would simply be replaced, not that the budget for that staff member would be taken away from the ALAC. In fact, today, given the ALAC’s input into ICANN’s budget process (as well as the ALAC’s productive relationship with ICANN staff), the ALAC feels there are already adequate safeguards in place to ensure the continuity of its staff support.
For these reasons, the ALAC and WT C feels there’s no longer a need for the ALAC to develop an annual support agreement with the staff.
Thanks very much,
Seth
______
Seth Greene
At-Large Improvements Project Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: + 1 (212) 662-7723
E-mail: seth.greene@icann.org <mailto:seth.greene@icann.org>
