Dear Mr. Zhang, I understand your suggestion regarding prioritisation is actually completely correct - but the recommendations themselves have an equal priority. It is the implementation which might need prioritisation - and this is based on the resources that ICANN has to implement the recommendations, not on the importance of the recommendations themselves. In this case, I have full confidence in ICANN Staff being able to manage and allocate resources which, in some cases might allow for parallel implementation of some of the recommendations but in others will involve a critical path that will require serial implementation and might therefore require prioritisation of tasks when linking it to dependency of processes. Ideally in large corporations, a project management Gantt Chart would be designed by the implementation Team and optimisation of such a Chart would be possible when allocating staffing person/time. A set of milestones would be identified and a calculation of suitable slack to counteract delays would be effected. Next a risk analysis would be performed to quantify the risk of project delay. Costing of such risks would be evaluated and cost-effective resiliency would be then built in the process delivery of the project so as to reduce financial exposure. In my humble opinion, this is what will determine the order in which the recommendations will be implemented. Kind regards, Olivier On 19/12/2013 15:40, zhang xinsheng wrote:
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 <mailto: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 <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>
310 383-8995 <tel:310%20383-8995>
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html