- atrt2 - lists.icann.org

Footnotes and text
by Brian Cute Dec. 19, 2013

Dec. 19, 2013

Larisa, Attached are 2 documents: one with new edits comprised of text and footnotes. PLEASE NOTE: the numbers referenced in this document map to the version of the Report bearing the file name: ATRT2FinalReport-Draft#1(17Dec)_BC+PD.docx. Also attached is a review of the Board's Resolutions since 2011. This document should become Appendix D to the Report. Please call if you have any questions. Regards, Brian

1 0

Quotes for footnotes - to Larisa
by Brian Cute Dec. 19, 2013

Dec. 19, 2013

Larisa, Attached are quotes that should appear in footnotes. After each quote, I would add the link to the comments (as we have elsewhere in the Report) so the reader can link to and read the comments in entirety. The quotes are not "mapped" to the relevant section in the Report. I will do that and be able to send in a few hours. Meantime, if Staff is able to drop these into the relevant Recommendation/Report text, please do and I will confirm the appropriate location in any event. Thanks. Regards, Brian

2 1

5.1.h. suggested revisions
by Heather.Dryden＠ic.gc.ca Dec. 19, 2013

Dec. 19, 2013

Dear all, Following yesterday's call, some last edits for the section on GAC-related recommendations: 5.1.h. Existing: When deliberating on matters relating to particular entities, give those entities the opportunity to present to the GAC as a whole, prior to deliberations, and to answer questions. Suggested revised text: When deliberating on matters affecting particular entities, to the extent reasonable and practical, give those entities the opportunity to present to the GAC as a whole prior to its deliberations. Rationale: USCIB's comments likely stem from the GAC's role in advising on controversial and sensitive new gTLDs as part of the program currently underway. In practice, there were a number of constraints on the GAC's ability to arrange for particular applicants or directly affected stakeholders to present to the GAC about a particular string or application. Among these constraints, were the large number of applications in the program overall and the consequent large number of requests made to present to the GAC from both applicants and other affected stakeholders. All correspondence or materials received by the GAC were nevertheless posted for information purposes on the GAC website. Thanks, Heather Dryden

1 0

FW: Prioritization Doodle Poll
by Larisa B. Gurnick Dec. 19, 2013

Dec. 19, 2013

Dear Review Team members, At your request during yesterday's ATRT2 call, the Doodle Poll to prioritize recommendations has been completed. Five ATRT2 members responded to the poll. Below is the tally summarizing the number of responders indicating that a given recommendation should be prioritized. The anonymized Doodle Poll snapshot provides information about how the five individuals voted. Please refer to the email below for the summary of recommendations. #1 - 2 #2 - 1 #3 - 1 #4 - 1 #5 - 2 #6 - 4 #7 - 2 #8 - 3 #9 - 2 #10 - 4 #11 - 2 #12 - 4 [cid:image001.png@01CEFC0E.79B85BB0] Best regards, Larisa From: atrt2-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:49 PM To: ATRT2 (atrt2(a)icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org>) Subject: [atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll 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

1 0

LAST CHANCE FOR EDITS!
by Brian Cute Dec. 19, 2013

Dec. 19, 2013

Review Team, Attached is the latest draft of the Report and Recommendations. Please carefully note the following: 1. Provide only SUBSTANTIVE AND CRITICAL edits you may have on the SUBSTANCE of the draft within 24 hours, or by 10:00p.m. UTC tomorrow. 2. Ignore edits concerning numbering, missing citations, spelling etc. Paul and I will continue over the next 24 hours to clean up the document so clean, correctly numbered version will go out for public comment. We will take any substantive and critical edits provided by 10:00p.m. UTC tomorrow and work them into the document. Our plan is to send the document to ICANN staff by 11:00p.m. UTC tomorrow to begin the translation process. 3. The Report will indicate that it is a draft that is subject to change based on Community input and continuing assessment by ATRT2 before the Final Report and Recommendations issue. Thanks to all. Regards, Brian

7 7

Rec. on Finances
by Jørgen C Abild Andersen Dec. 18, 2013

Dec. 18, 2013

Following up on discussions at the conference call yesterday please find attached a revised version of the recommendation on Finances. Changes (last page in subparagraph 4) are marked with yellow. Best regards Lise and Jørgen

3 3

Recommendations in the body of the text.
by Avri Doria Dec. 18, 2013

Dec. 18, 2013

Hi, Once we arrive at the final wording (done for the most part I think) who is going to make sure that the recommendations in the long text match the ones in the recommendation chapter? thanks. avri

2 1

Public comments on cross-community Rec
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 18, 2013

Dec. 18, 2013

Public comments and citations.

1 0

revised 8, once and future 9
by Avri Doria Dec. 17, 2013

Dec. 17, 2013

Hi, I think I caught the new 8 (once and future 9) changes in the enclosed file. avri

1 0

old 3 edited
by Avri Doria Dec. 17, 2013

Dec. 17, 2013

3. 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

1 0