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

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

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

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, 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

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

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

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

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

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 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