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<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995
Thanks avri On 20-Dec-13 02:30, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
Dear Review Team members, T%hanks 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 <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>
310 383-8995
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
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
Lise, Thank you for your prompt response. The changes to 12.4 that you are questioning were proposed by Brian and were transferred into the document by Sabra, who is the editor assisting with the document. It does not appear that Brian had shared his edits. I've attached his document. Based on your direction, I will use the following wording, unless you and Brian provide staff with different directions. In order to improve accountability and transparency ICANN's 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. ICANN's [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN's activities and the related expenses with particular focus on the implementation of the [yearly] budget. The financial report shall be subject to public consultation. Best regards and have a happy holiday, Larisa From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 12:32 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick; 'ATRT2' Subject: SV: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review 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 don't 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> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Larisa B. Gurnick Sendt: 20. december 2013 08:30 Til: ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995
Larisa, Since Recommendation editors are clearly active, I am resending your email to the list that contained the most recent "master" version. If this is incorrect, please indicate and send the version editors should be working on to the list. Thank you. Best, Brian From: "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick@icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:01:38 -0800 To: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>>, 'ATRT2' <atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review Lise, Thank you for your prompt response. The changes to 12.4 that you are questioning were proposed by Brian and were transferred into the document by Sabra, who is the editor assisting with the document. It does not appear that Brian had shared his edits. I’ve attached his document. Based on your direction, I will use the following wording, unless you and Brian provide staff with different directions. In order to improve accountability and transparency ICANN’s 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. ICANN’s [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN’s activities and the related expenses with particular focus on the implementation of the [yearly] budget. The financial report shall be subject to public consultation. Best regards and have a happy holiday, Larisa From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 12:32 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick; 'ATRT2' Subject: SV: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review 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 don’t 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> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Larisa B. Gurnick Sendt: 20. december 2013 08:30 Til: ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Dear ATRT2 members, Please do NOT use the attached draft for editing, as it is completely outdated now, with numerous changes that have been processed since then. Staff will circulate an updated version shortly. Best regards, Larisa From: Brian Cute [mailto:bcute@pir.org] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 6:31 AM To: Larisa B. Gurnick; ATRT2 Subject: FW: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review Larisa, Since Recommendation editors are clearly active, I am resending your email to the list that contained the most recent "master" version. If this is incorrect, please indicate and send the version editors should be working on to the list. Thank you. Best, Brian From: "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick@icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:01:38 -0800 To: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk<mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk>>, 'ATRT2' <atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review Lise, Thank you for your prompt response. The changes to 12.4 that you are questioning were proposed by Brian and were transferred into the document by Sabra, who is the editor assisting with the document. It does not appear that Brian had shared his edits. I've attached his document. Based on your direction, I will use the following wording, unless you and Brian provide staff with different directions. In order to improve accountability and transparency ICANN's 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. ICANN's [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN's activities and the related expenses with particular focus on the implementation of the [yearly] budget. The financial report shall be subject to public consultation. Best regards and have a happy holiday, Larisa From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 12:32 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick; 'ATRT2' Subject: SV: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review 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 don't 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> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Larisa B. Gurnick Sendt: 20. december 2013 08:30 Til: ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
ATRT2 members, Please use the version Larisa just circulated. DO NOT us the version I forwarded to the list. It was an old version. My apologies for the confusion. Regards, Brian Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 23, 2013, at 11:18 AM, "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick@icann.org> wrote:
Dear ATRT2 members, Please do NOT use the attached draft for editing, as it is completely outdated now, with numerous changes that have been processed since then. Staff will circulate an updated version shortly.
Best regards,
Larisa
From: Brian Cute [mailto:bcute@pir.org] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 6:31 AM To: Larisa B. Gurnick; ATRT2 Subject: FW: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review
Larisa,
Since Recommendation editors are clearly active, I am resending your email to the list that contained the most recent "master" version. If this is incorrect, please indicate and send the version editors should be working on to the list. Thank you.
Best, Brian
From: "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick@icann.org> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:01:38 -0800 To: Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr@difo.dk>, 'ATRT2' <atrt2@icann.org> Subject: Re: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review
Lise, Thank you for your prompt response. The changes to 12.4 that you are questioning were proposed by Brian and were transferred into the document by Sabra, who is the editor assisting with the document. It does not appear that Brian had shared his edits. I’ve attached his document.
Based on your direction, I will use the following wording, unless you and Brian provide staff with different directions.
In order to improve accountability and transparency ICANN’s 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. ICANN’s [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN’s activities and the related expenses with particular focus on the implementation of the [yearly] budget. The financial report shall be subject to public consultation.
Best regards and have a happy holiday,
Larisa
From: Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr@difo.dk] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 12:32 PM To: Larisa B. Gurnick; 'ATRT2' Subject: SV: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review
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 don’t 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
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 don’t 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
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 don’t 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
Fine. Larisa,would you kindly note and make the edit per Lise. Thank you. Regards, Brian Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 22, 2013, at 2:02 PM, "Lise Fuhr" <lise.fuhr@difo.dk> wrote:
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 don’t 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
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 ICANN’s 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. ICANN’s [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN’s 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<mailto: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 don’t 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> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Larisa B. Gurnick Sendt: 20. december 2013 08:30 Til: ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
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<mailto: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 ICANN’s 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. ICANN’s [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN’s 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<mailto: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 don’t 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> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Larisa B. Gurnick Sendt: 20. december 2013 08:30 Til: ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995 _______________________________________________ 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
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
Hi, I tend to support Lise's point on this. Also I must admit I do not understand what it has to do with attracting staff. avri On 23-Dec-13 04:40, Lise Fuhr 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 don’t 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 <mailto: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 ICANN’s 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. ICANN’s [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN’s 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 <mailto: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 don’t 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> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne af *Larisa B. Gurnick *Sendt:* 20. december 2013 08:30 *Til:* ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>
310 383-8995
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
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<mailto: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 don’t 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<mailto: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<mailto: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 ICANN’s 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. ICANN’s [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN’s 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<mailto: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 don’t 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> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Larisa B. Gurnick Sendt: 20. december 2013 08:30 Til: ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995 _______________________________________________ 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
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 don’t 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 ICANN’s 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. ICANN’s [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN’s 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 don’t 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 atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
As an example In australia, not for profits are considered to be administrativ Sent from my iPhone On 24 Dec 2013, at 9:19 am, "Steve Crocker" <steve@shinkuro.com<mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>> wrote: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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 don’t 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<mailto: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<mailto: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 ICANN’s 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. ICANN’s [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN’s 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<mailto: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 don’t 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> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Larisa B. Gurnick Sendt: 20. december 2013 08:30 Til: ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Sorry! Administratively top heavy if they spend more than 30% on costs on admin Is this a test that is relevant in this case? Sent from my iPhone On 24 Dec 2013, at 10:45 am, "Conroy, Stephen (Private)" <Stephen.Conroy@aph.gov.au<mailto:Stephen.Conroy@aph.gov.au>> wrote: As an example In australia, not for profits are considered to be administrativ Sent from my iPhone On 24 Dec 2013, at 9:19 am, "Steve Crocker" <steve@shinkuro.com<mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>> wrote: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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 don’t 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<mailto: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<mailto: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 ICANN’s 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. ICANN’s [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN’s 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<mailto: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 don’t 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> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Larisa B. Gurnick Sendt: 20. december 2013 08:30 Til: ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
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
Hi, I tend to think that any metrics that are benchmarked have to be done on a basis that make statistical and scientific sense. Is it necessary to say that? I do not think of the ATRT as the social scientists that can make that sense. We know that metrics need to be collected and that those need to be benchmarked and used for increased accountability. Again we trust in the Board and the staff to figure out how to do this properly, with community consultation, of course. From inside our bubble, ICANN finds itself to be unique, yet when looked at by the social scientists who study organizations such as this, we are not completely unique and there are many bases for comparison and thus benchmark. I would think that using its standard modalities*, the Board would be able to gain the information it needed to scope and design this project. And if at the end of a real college try the Board really could not fulfill this requirement then ATRT3 can discuss both the failure and other ways to get this accountability need fulfilled. avri *some of those modalities include: going to a research firm such as OWT, putting together a presidential panel by another name, Board sending an issue to the appropriate SOAC, crowdsourcing, iterative guessing with community feedback. On 23-Dec-13 17:14, Conroy, Stephen (Private) 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 <mailto: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 don't 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 ICANN's 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. ICANN's [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN's 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 <mailto: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 don't 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> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne af *Larisa B. Gurnick *Sendt:* 20. december 2013 08:30 *Til:* ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>
310 383-8995
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Hello all, I must say likewise, I am also somehow confused by: "suitable for a non-profit organization". There are countless different types of non-profit organizations with varying budgets and on the matter of budget, ICANN is rather special in that it is supporting a global bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process... possibly the only one of its kind in existence (dare I say, in the universe?). Surely that complicates matters? Kind regards, Olivier On 23/12/2013 23:14, Conroy, Stephen (Private) 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 <mailto: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 don't 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 ICANN's 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. ICANN's [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN's 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 <mailto: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 don't 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> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne af *Larisa B. Gurnick *Sendt:* 20. december 2013 08:30 *Til:* ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>
310 383-8995
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
ICANN is expected to run all of the stakeholder engagement and we would like it to do more I agree with Olivier that this causes measurement problems Stephen Sent from my iPhone On 24 Dec 2013, at 10:24 am, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Hello all, I must say likewise, I am also somehow confused by: "suitable for a non-profit organization". There are countless different types of non-profit organizations with varying budgets and on the matter of budget, ICANN is rather special in that it is supporting a global bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy development process... possibly the only one of its kind in existence (dare I say, in the universe?). Surely that complicates matters? Kind regards, Olivier On 23/12/2013 23:14, Conroy, Stephen (Private) 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<mailto: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 don’t 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<mailto: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<mailto: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 ICANN’s 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. ICANN’s [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN’s 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<mailto: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 don’t 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> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Larisa B. Gurnick Sendt: 20. december 2013 08:30 Til: ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org<mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
H, I don't know if draft2 is the latest, I thought there was going to be a draft3 after the one day review i missed. On the recommendations for which i held the 'pen' avri Note 1 9.4b b. A discussion of the degree to which ICANN, both staff and community, are adhering to a default standard of transparency in all policy, implementation and administrative actions as well as in narratives, redactions or other practices used to not disclose information to the ICANN community, all documented in a transparent manner. should be b. A discussion of the degree to which ICANN, both staff and community, are adhering to a default standard of transparency in all policy, implementation and administrative actions; as well as the degree to which all narratives, redaction, or other practices used to not disclose information to the ICANN community are documented in a transparent manner. (this extended sentence was hard to parse based on punctuation and the lack of parallel construction) Issue 2 9.4ci i. requests of the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) process and the disposition of Board Book requests. should be i. requests of the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) process and the disposition of requests. (i.e. drop the spurious board book reference that did not get properly deleted from a previous edit.)
Thank you Avri. On 12/22/13 11:29 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
H,
I don't know if draft2 is the latest, I thought there was going to be a draft3 after the one day review i missed.
On the recommendations for which i held the 'pen'
avri
Note 1 9.4b
b. A discussion of the degree to which ICANN, both staff and community, are adhering to a default standard of transparency in all policy, implementation and administrative actions as well as in narratives, redactions or other practices used to not disclose information to the ICANN community, all documented in a transparent manner.
should be
b. A discussion of the degree to which ICANN, both staff and community, are adhering to a default standard of transparency in all policy, implementation and administrative actions; as well as the degree to which all narratives, redaction, or other practices used to not disclose information to the ICANN community are documented in a transparent manner.
(this extended sentence was hard to parse based on punctuation and the lack of parallel construction)
Issue 2 9.4ci
i. requests of the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) process and the disposition of Board Book requests.
should be
i. requests of the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) process and the disposition of requests.
(i.e. drop the spurious board book reference that did not get properly deleted from a previous edit.) _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Dear Review Team, I would like to provide you with an updated status. The comments and edits that you've sent since staff circulated Draft #2 documents on Friday are in the process of being incorporated into the final draft, which will be circulated to the Review Team tomorrow, Monday. Here is the inventory of changes that have been captured. * Brian's edits to the language of the Executive Summary: "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. 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." * 9.4.b has been modified based on Avri's edit to read: "A discussion of the degree to which ICANN, both staff and community, are adhering to a default standard of transparency in all policy, implementation and administrative actions; as well as the degree to which all narratives, redaction, or other practices used to not disclose information to the ICANN community are documented in a transparent manner." * 9.4.c i) has been modified based on Avri's edit to read: "requests of the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) process and the disposition of requests." * 12.4 has been restored based on Lise's note to read "In order to improve accountability and transparency ICANN's 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. ICANN's [yearly] financial reporting shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANN's activities and the related expenses with particular focus on the implementation of the [yearly] budget. The financial report shall be subject to public consultation." * Brian's addition of Appendix E - Observations concerning the ATRT2. Staff has filled in the missing data and provided several notes for your consideration. Please see the attached document. * Regarding Olivier's question about "the ATRT2", Sabra, the editor, has gone through the entire document, ensuring that acronyms are spelled out the first time they appear and making sure that the words "the" are incorporated consistently. This is her explanation for the methodology that she followed: "I included the digit in the full term, as it is significant to the name. That means in most cases it should appear without the article, as "ATRT2." In cases where the article is present, it's because it modifies a noun, such as "the ATRT2 report." This approach is already reflected in Draft #2 circulated on Friday. Larisa From: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 11:30 PM To: ATRT2 (atrt2@icann.org) Subject: [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<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995 ________________________________
Dear Larisa, On 22/12/2013 19:04, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
Regarding Olivier's question about "the ATRT2", Sabra, the editor, has gone through the entire document, ensuring that acronyms are spelled out the first time they appear and making sure that the words "the" are incorporated consistently. This is her explanation for the methodology that she followed: "I included the digit in the full term, as it is significant to the name. That means in most cases it should appear without the article, as "ATRT2." In cases where the article is present, it's because it modifies a noun, such as "the ATRT2 report." This approach is already reflected in Draft #2 circulated on Friday.
I'm not sure I agree with this grammar. In general, the inclusion or non inclusion of a pronoun before an acronym depends on the expanded version of this acronym, thus ATRT2 expands to "Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2". I'd therefore think that in the vast majority of cases, it would be "The ATRT2 does this, the ATRT2 recommends that". That said, I apologise for picking on an issue that's really a non issue so I am fine with the choices which were made. Please do not waste any more time on this. Kindest regards, Olivier
participants (8)
-
Avri Doria -
Brian Cute -
Brian Cute -
Conroy, Stephen (Private) -
Larisa B. Gurnick -
Lise Fuhr -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Steve Crocker