Hi Olivier,
I am kind of confused about the point. For all of these recommendations,
I think that the importance of them and the effort to prioritize them are
two things. Even if the team thinks the 12 recommendations are all
important, in terms of operation, should we tell ICANN to implement all
12 recommendations at the same time? I do not know whether my knowledge
regarding prioritization methodology is wrong.
The team can decide not to do this. But ICANN has to face it in the
process of implementation. Should the team make some suggestions to ICANN
in this aspect?
Best regards,
Xinsheng
发件人:
atrt2-bounces@icann.org
[
mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] 代表 Olivier MJ
Crepin-Leblond
发送时间: 2013年12月19日 9:47
收件人: atrt2@icann.org
主题: Re: [atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll
Thank you for your explanation, Denise. Yes, I had dropped from the last
call when this was discussed (darn) - apologies for the
misunderstanding.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 19/12/2013 02:26, Denise Michel wrote:
- Dear Olivier,
-
- For the sake of clarity (and you may have gotten dropped from the
last call when this was discussed?) -- the Team decided to consider
prioritizing and asked staff to send this poll. This came out of a
request from Zhang Xinsheng to prioritize the recommendations.
-
- Regards,
- Denise
-
- On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
<ocl@gih.com> wrote:
- Dear Larisa,
- I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations.
This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all
important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the
recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are
doing.
- There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class
organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the
rate at which these recommendations are implemented?
- For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the
doodle poll.
- Kind regards,
- Olivier
- On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
- 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@icann.org
- 310 383-8995
-
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
- _______________________________________________
- atrt2 mailing list
- atrt2@icann.org
-
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing
listatrt2@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2