Dear all, The intention of recommendation 12.3. is that benchmarking can be a part of showing that ICANN is accountable. The intention is not to restrict ICANN in any way. By not being too specific in precisely how to compare/benchmark the aim is to give ICANN a possibility to implement the recommendation in a way that is manageable for the organization. The intention is important ICANN might not be in line with other not-for-profit organizations in certain areas but if there is a good reason for this - that is fine. But if not benchmarked and reasoned for the differences there is a risk that the global internet society will not find ICANN accountable. And if the reasoning is not published there a no possibility of being a part of the conversation about the accountability of ICANN. Benchmarking is not an absolute measure so when ICANN is to benchmark they can choose which other not-for-profit (and possibly also profit organizations) they benchmark towards. They important part is the reasoning of why they have chosen the organizations. Furthermore when benchmarking with other organizations you have a range of lower, median and top percentile that ICANN as an organization can choose which one they want to be comparing with. Again the important part is the reasoning of the choice because this is when ICANN is showing their accountability. Best regards, Jørgen and Lise Fra: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve@shinkuro.com] Sendt: 23. december 2013 23:19 Til: Conroy, Stephen (Private) Cc: Steve Crocker; Lise Fuhr; ATRT2; Sabra Chartrand Emne: Re: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review Stephen, Lise, et al, I am following this only lightly. I will ultimately have to dive deeply into this, and I'll be asking the same questions Stephen is asking. Anything you can do to make it clearer how to implement the recommendation will be appreciated. Thanks, Steve On Dec 23, 2013, at 5:14 PM, "Conroy, Stephen (Private)" <Stephen.Conroy@aph.gov.au> wrote: Hi, my concern is the words will ultimately prove unworkable and be unable to be implemented. Can someone nominate a ' suitable not for profit ' What are the standards of the other organisation ? Stephen Sent from my iPhone On 23 Dec 2013, at 8:40 pm, "Lise Fuhr" <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote: Hi Stephen, The exact current text was agreed by the team at a conference call earlier this month. The last part of paragraph 12.3 is a result of comments from the last round of public comments. There are no preconceived agendas and deviations go both ways. So I dont think we go too far regarding intent. Furthermore I am not sure I understand your comment about benchmarking not being the only item to consider when trying to attract staff. I find that the paragraph is an important part of being accountable and ensuring that ICANN is accountable. Best, Lise Fra: Conroy, Stephen (Private) [mailto:Stephen.Conroy@aph.gov.au] Sendt: 23. december 2013 04:54 Til: Larisa B. Gurnick Cc: Lise Fuhr; Brian Cute; Sabra Chartrand (Chartrand@att.net); ATRT2 Emne: Re: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review Hi all Could I indicate I do not support Lise current paragraph 12.3 It is far too restrictive in its intent Benchmarking is important but should not be the only item to consider when trying to attract staff The ATRT must not simply push preconceived agendas Stephen Sent from my iPhone On 23 Dec 2013, at 10:42 am, "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick@icann.org> wrote: Lise, Confirmed. The following wording is currently included in the report, in the Executive Summary as well as the body of the report. 12.3 Every three years the Board should conduct a benchmark study on relevant parameters, (e.g. size of organization, levels of staff compensation and benefits, cost of living adjustments, etc.) suitable for a non-profit organization. If the result of the benchmark is that ICANN as an organization is not in line with the standards of comparable organizations, the Board should consider aligning the deviation. In cases where the Board chooses not to align, this has to be reasoned in the Board decision and published to the Internet community. 12.4 In order to improve accountability and transparency ICANNs Board should base the yearly budgets on a multi-annual strategic plan and corresponding financial framework [covering e.g. a three-year period] This rolling plan and framework should reflect the planned activities and the corresponding expenses in that multi-annual period. This should include specified budgets for the ACs and SOs. ICANNs [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANNs activities and the related expenses with particular focus on the implementation of the [yearly] budget. The financial report shall be subject to public consultation. Larisa From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk] Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 11:03 AM To: 'Brian Cute' Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; 'ATRT2' Subject: SV: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review Hi Brian, I would like to keep the previous edition of 12.4 and I hope that 12.3 still reads: 12.3 Every three years the Board should conduct a benchmark study on relevant parameters, (e.g. size of organization, levels of staff compensation and benefits, cost of living adjustments, etc.) suitable for a non-profit organization. If the result of the benchmark is that ICANN as an organization is not in line with the standards of comparable organizations, the Board should consider aligning the deviation. In cases where the Board chooses not to align, this has to be reasoned in the Board decision and published to the Internet community. Best regards and have a happy holiday, Lise Fra: Brian Cute [mailto:brianacute@gmail.com] Sendt: 22. december 2013 18:24 Til: Lise Fuhr Cc: Larisa B. Gurnick; ATRT2 Emne: Re: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review Lise, I have added footnotes with quotes from public comments to the report as well as a few edits. I intended those edits to add support to the recommendations. If you are uncomfortable with the impact on the recommendations you drafted, by all means fell free to change th to reflect the intent of your draft. Beat, Brian Sent from my iPhone On Dec 20, 2013, at 3:31 PM, "Lise Fuhr" <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote: Hi Larisa, I have a few remarks. I am not happy with the changes Sabra made on page 12 to recommendation 12.4. I think the new wording changes the recommendation too much. I furthermore dont understand why the review team suddenly is a part of the recommendation. The changes are not in the same recommendation on page 81. I prefer the original version on page 81. At page 79 there is a comment from [s36] about whose comments is this? The section referred to is a part of the section above and is a part of the RySG comments to recommendation 12.4. I hope this is understandable. Have a nice weekend and a Merry Christmas/holidays Best, Lise Fra: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Larisa B. Gurnick Sendt: 20. december 2013 08:30 Til: ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org) Emne: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review Dear Review Team members, Attached are documents comprising ATRT2 Final Report Draft #2. Please review these documents and provide staff with your final edits by 23 UTC on Friday, 20 December. Staff will circulate ATRT2 Final Report Draft #3 on Monday 23 December. Appendix B has not changed since the Draft Report. Appendix C reflects all the submitted changes. Appendix D is new. Staff made every effort to reflect your intended changes consistently and accurately, and the quality control effort is still continuing. However, due to the volume of changes, please take care to check your portions of the document to ensure accuracy. Formatting and table of contents will be updated in the next draft. As a reminder, ICANN will be closed for the holidays from noon on 24 December through 1 January, and the editor that has been engaged to assist with the Final Report will not be available after 23 December. 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. Best regards, 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 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list <mailto:atrt2@icann.org> atrt2@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2