- atrt2 - lists.icann.org

Re: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft #3 LATEST
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 24, 2013

Dec. 24, 2013

See embedded. Also, there is a reference at the end of your note to "implantation". Don't know where it comes from, but presume it should be implementation. At 23/12/2013 06:35 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: >Dear ATRT2, >Attached is the latest version of the ATRT2 >Report, along with separate documents for >Appendices B- E (Appendix A is the ICC report). >All changes have been incorporated and Table of >Contents has been updated. These are the master >files and should be used if you plan to make any >further changes to the report prior to >submitting it to the Board. Please copy me, >Denise and Alice when you submit your Final Report to the Board. > >Staff flagged several items (previously included >as notes in the document) for you to consider as >you finalize the report please see the listing below. > >As a reminder, ICANN will be closed for the >holidays from noon on 24 December through 1 >January. Staff will be available to assist with >any last minute edits upon return on 2 >January. Staff will submit the final report for >translation and coordinate the posting on the >web site as soon as ATRT2 confirms the Final >Report documents after the holidays. > >Happy Holidays, >Larisa > >Items for ATRT2 consideration prior to finalizing the report: >1. Recommendation #4 Paul indicated that >the Review Team should develop a footnote >explaining change from prior language, i.e. only >mention policy development and implementation, >not administrative matters. Executive Summary and body of the report. >2. Recommendation #6 Confirm that the >following should be deleted: Increase GAC >early involvement in the various ICANN policy >processes (tied to ATRT 1 Recommendation >12). Recommendation was merged and concepts >included in the recommendations related to >cross-community development >processes. Executive Summary and body of the report. I cannot locate that line, so presume it was already deleted. In any case, I can see no reason to keep it. If we really want a link, it could be worded "Another GAC-related recommendation can be found at Recommendation 10.2". However, I see no real need for that. >3. Report Section 1; Findings of >ATRT1: In the course of its deliberations, >ATRT1 found that the Nominating Committee >(NomCom) had failed to implement previous recommendations from, [S1] > > >4. In several sections of the report, >references to ATRT1 recommendations have been >footnoted. This has not been done consistently throughout the report. > > > > > >5. Report Section 5; Findings of ATRT1 - capacity[S2] . > > > >6. Report Section Headings Alan made a >change to Report Section 13, which was >incorporated. He took out the parenthetical >reference; yet other Report Sections still have >it and earlier, there was an agreement to >include these references for further >clarity. ATRT2 should make a decision to address this consistently. What I removed was factually incorrect - it referred to earlier versions which were focused on the GNSO PDP. What you have for sections 14 and 15 is: Report Section 14. AoC REVIEW PROCESS EFFECTIVENESS: ATRT2 Recommendation 11 (New Recommendation on Effectiveness of the Review Process) Report Section 15. FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABIILITY AND TRANSPARENCY: ATRT2 Recommendation #12 (New Recommendation on Finance Accountability and Transparency) The parenthetical seems rather redundant to me, but if you want one for Section 13, it should be: Report Section 13. CROSS-COMMUNITY DELIBERATIONS: ATRT2 Recommendation #10 (New Recommendation on Cross-community Deliberations) >7. P.54 Summary of other relevant >information Staff has previously submitted a >correction: Correction: Page 45 of the Draft >Report: Reconsideration review on 13-3, the >Board, through the NGPC, actually accepted >reconsideration of the issue, though the >ultimate decision was that the action should not >be overturned. This is different from the Board >denying reconsideration, which is what happened in the other instances cited. > > >8. Appendix E p. E-4; Metrics and >criteria for measuring progress; last sentence - >ATRT2 requested that it be able to interact with >One World Trust directly so that ATRT2 could >reflect the need for metrics in its Final Report >in a coordinated way. [LBG3] > > > > > > >Larisa B. Gurnick >Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ><mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org >310 383-8995 > > > [S1]PD7 asks do we know what entity made this > recommendation? Would need citations LG > response: Not sure could be the structural review mandated by the bylaws. > > [S2]PD19 says reference explanatory text on > why ATRT2 is only focusing on policy development and implantation? > [LBG3]Staff suggestion: update the comment > based on the draft report that has been shared confidentially with the ATRT2.

1 0

Final Report
by Brian Cute Dec. 24, 2013

Dec. 24, 2013

All, Thank you for the inputs, including those that came in today. Most of all, an enormous thanks to ICANN staff who has been working diligently to absorb the final offered edits to the Report and Recommendations. I have seen all the inputs and will turn my attention to them on Thursday and Friday after the holiday to try to ensure that to the Final Recommendations are accurately reflected as intended by the editors and the ATRT2 as a whole. I will indicate to the ATRT2 and Staff when I have completed the task and will send to the Board by the 31st. Speak to you soon. Best, Brian Sent from my iPhone

1 0

ATRT2 Final Report - Draft #3 LATEST
by Larisa B. Gurnick Dec. 23, 2013

Dec. 23, 2013

Dear ATRT2, Attached is the latest version of the ATRT2 Report, along with separate documents for Appendices B- E (Appendix A is the ICC report). All changes have been incorporated and Table of Contents has been updated. These are the master files and should be used if you plan to make any further changes to the report prior to submitting it to the Board. Please copy me, Denise and Alice when you submit your Final Report to the Board. Staff flagged several items (previously included as notes in the document) for you to consider as you finalize the report – please see the listing below. As a reminder, ICANN will be closed for the holidays from noon on 24 December through 1 January. Staff will be available to assist with any last minute edits upon return on 2 January. Staff will submit the final report for translation and coordinate the posting on the web site as soon as ATRT2 confirms the Final Report documents after the holidays. Happy Holidays, Larisa Items for ATRT2 consideration prior to finalizing the report: 1. Recommendation #4 – Paul indicated that the Review Team should develop a footnote explaining change from prior language, i.e. only mention policy development and implementation, not administrative matters. Executive Summary and body of the report. 2. Recommendation #6 Confirm that the following should be deleted: “Increase GAC early involvement in the various ICANN policy processes (tied to ATRT 1 Recommendation 12). Recommendation was merged and concepts included in the recommendations related to cross-community development processes.” Executive Summary and body of the report. 3. Report Section 1; Findings of ATRT1: “In the course of its deliberations, ATRT1 found that the Nominating Committee (NomCom) had failed to implement previous recommendations from, [S1] 4. In several sections of the report, references to ATRT1 recommendations have been footnoted. This has not been done consistently throughout the report. 5. Report Section 5; Findings of ATRT1 - capacity[S2] . 6. Report Section Headings – Alan made a change to Report Section 13, which was incorporated. He took out the parenthetical reference; yet other Report Sections still have it and earlier, there was an agreement to include these references for further clarity. ATRT2 should make a decision to address this consistently. 7. P.54 – Summary of other relevant information – Staff has previously submitted a correction: “Correction: Page 45 of the Draft Report: Reconsideration review – on 13-3, the Board, through the NGPC, actually accepted reconsideration of the issue, though the ultimate decision was that the action should not be overturned. This is different from the Board denying reconsideration, which is what happened in the other instances cited.” 8. Appendix E – p. E-4; Metrics and criteria for measuring progress; last sentence - ATRT2 requested that it be able to interact with One World Trust directly so that ATRT2 could reflect the need for metrics in its Final Report in a coordinated way. [LBG3] Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995 ________________________________ [S1]PD7 asks do we know what entity made this recommendation? Would need citations LG response: Not sure – could be the structural review mandated by the bylaws. [S2]PD19 says reference explanatory text on why ATRT2 is only focusing on policy development and implantation? [LBG3]Staff suggestion: update the comment based on the draft report that has been shared confidentially with the ATRT2.

1 0

Corrections to Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 23, 2013

Dec. 23, 2013

Attached is the most recent version I received. Previous changes to Recommendation 7 (page 46) and the entire Section 13 (pages 63-69) were accepted and my changes then added. The changes are: - Rec 7 now has to somewhat unrelated sections, so I applied numbering to the paragraphs. - Changing capitalization in Rec 7 and omitting an extraneous word. - The body of Section 13 still referred specifically to the PDP even though the recommendations were now more generalized. I changed the added a sentence to the lead paragraph of Section 13 to address this. - Bullets were missing to the summary of original community input. - Adding a missing S in 10.1-b I have NOT made the corresponding changes to the Executive Summary. Two changes throughout the document that I have NOT made but highly recommend: - We interchangeably use "public comment" and "Public Comment". I suggest the latter. - The section title "Public Comment on Draft Recommendations" has had the "Draft" deleted, presumably because we are no longer including the text of the draft Recs. This results in some confusion as to whether these comments are in fact to the Recs that follow. I suggest we re-instate the word Draft, and perhaps and a line just under the title pointing to where the draft report can be found. Alan

3 3

Re: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report
by Brian Cute Dec. 23, 2013

Dec. 23, 2013

Jorgen and Lise, Please confirm in the latest text (or next text issued by Staff) that the language in the Final Report is as you had drafted it. I will not be sending this to the Board until after the holiday so please do confirm. Thank you. Regards, Brian From: Jørgen C Abild Andersen <jocaan(a)erst.dk<mailto:jocaan@erst.dk>> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 12:29:00 +0000 To: Brian Cute <bcute(a)pir.org<mailto:bcute@pir.org>> Cc: "'lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk<mailto:'lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk>'" <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>> Subject: VS: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report

1 0

Edits to ATRT2 Final Report
by Brian Cute Dec. 22, 2013

Dec. 22, 2013

Larisa, In the current version of the Final Report, the following statement appears at the top of page 3: "ATRT2 believes that these Recommendations are important and, to the extent accepted by the Board, should be treated as a strategic priority. To that end, ICANN should create an implementation plan and publish it to the Community." Please add the following text directly after that sentence as a continuation of the paragraph: "ATRT2 wishes to emphasize that the observations appearing in ATRT2's assessments and elsewhere in the body of the Report should be duly considered by the Board and afforded all due weight in ongoing and future implementation efforts." Also, please create an Appendix for the ATRT2's Observations on the Review Process document. PLEASE NOTE, there are data points that need to be added to the ATRT2 Observations document -- # of conference calls held by ATRT2, # of face to face meetings etc. I am not sure that I have the master "Observations" document but I believe ATRT2 had 16 conference calls and 7 face to face meetings. Would you kindly add that data to the document. The attached document which is a description of audit techniques being under consideration by the Structural Improvements Committee should be added to the Observations document as part of the record of our discussions. As a lead in to the Audit Framework documents, please add the following text: "In discussing how to improve the AoC Review process going forward, ATRT2 also considered the work of the ICANN Structural Improvements Committee on Institutional Reviews. The ATRT2 notes that the AoC Reviews are distinct and different from the ICANN Institutional Reviews. At the same time, AoC Review Teams and the Board should consider the ATRT2's Observations and a range of techniques to improve the AoC Review processes. The following document contains a number of techniques considered by the Structural Improvement Committee for consideration." Regards, Brian

3 2

ATRT2 Final Report
by Brian Cute Dec. 21, 2013

Dec. 21, 2013

This message is for the editors of Recommendations – that is to say, the ATRT2 members who were assigned to "hold the pen" for certain assigned Recommendations. Since we are near the end of our process and because the accuracy of the Recommendations is paramount, I ask the editors and only the editors to review the next version of the Final Report from Staff to check the accuracy of the Recommendations one last time. If there are any corrections to be made, please provide them to Staff no later than this Sunday night, midnight Los Angeles, U.S. Time. Staff will make any corrections to Recommendations only on Monday, December 23 after which time the Report will be locked down. I will check with Staff on the 23rd to confirm all Recommendations are accurate. Thank you for the final push. Regards, Brian

2 1

Prioritization Doodle Poll
by Larisa B. Gurnick Dec. 20, 2013

Dec. 20, 2013

Dear ATRT2 Members, As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be "priority" recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December. Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report. Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference: #1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time. #2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Board's functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement. #3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Director's compensation levels against prevailing standards. #4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions. #5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed. #6 GAC-related recommendation #7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s). #8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations. #9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes #10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations #11 Effectiveness of the Review Process #12 Financial Accountability and Transparency Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995

10 15

Prioritization
by Brian Cute Dec. 20, 2013

Dec. 20, 2013

All, I have been following the discussion on this point. Here is what I suggest and I am interested in feedback. ATRT2 adds a statement to the Report to this effect: "ATRT2 believes that these Recommendations are important and, to the extent accepted by the Board, should be treated as a strategic priority. To that end, ICANN should create an implementation plan and publish it to the Community." A few observations when considering this statement. It is appropriate, as ICANN continues to mature, that the organization treat Review Team recommendations that it accepts as strategic priority items. It is also appropriate to expect the organization to develop and implementation plan, publish it, execute and measure (with metrics, KPIs, benchmarks etc.) its implementation performance. Staff and Board have indicated that there are already some projects underway that map to Recommendations. That is a good thing. Mr. Zhang does raise a valid, practical point (supported by David Conrad). Are we asking ICANN to implement all of these Recommendations with the same level of prioritization and at the same time? This could be an impractical request. I would think that, in the normal course, if ICANN develops and implementation plan it will identify the effort and resources necessary to implement the Recommendations and that implementation of the Recommendations will vary to some degree. I think for all these reasons, the statement about may be useful to include in the Report. Regards, Brian

8 9

Appendix C - SSR Review Implementation - FOR YOUR REVIEW
by Larisa B. Gurnick Dec. 20, 2013

Dec. 20, 2013

David, Please review the proposed edits to Appendix C - SSR Review Implementation and provide staff with your final edits by 16 UTC on Friday, 20 December. Thank you, Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick(a)icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995

3 4