Dear ATRT2 Members, As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be "priority" recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December. Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report. Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference: #1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time. #2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Board's functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement. #3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Director's compensation levels against prevailing standards. #4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions. #5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed. #6 GAC-related recommendation #7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s). #8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations. #9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes #10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations #11 Effectiveness of the Review Process #12 Financial Accountability and Transparency Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick@icann.org<mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org> 310 383-8995
Dear Larisa, I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing. There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented? For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll. Kind regards, Olivier On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be "priority" recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll _http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. *This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December.*_ Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report.
Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:
#1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time.
#2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Board's functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement.
#3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Director's compensation levels against prevailing standards.
#4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions.
#5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed.
#6 GAC-related recommendation
#7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s).
#8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations.
#9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes
#10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations
#11 Effectiveness of the Review Process
#12 Financial Accountability and Transparency
*/Larisa B. Gurnick/*
Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick@icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>
310 383-8995
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Dear Olivier, For the sake of clarity (and you may have gotten dropped from the last call when this was discussed?) -- the Team decided to consider prioritizing and asked staff to send this poll. This came out of a request from Zhang Xinsheng to prioritize the recommendations. Regards, Denise On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Dear Larisa,
I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing. There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented? For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be “priority” recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll *http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u <http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u>. This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December.* Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report.
Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:
#1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time.
#2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Board’s functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement.
#3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Director’s compensation levels against prevailing standards.
#4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions.
#5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed.
#6 GAC-related recommendation
#7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s).
#8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations.
#9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes
#10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations
#11 Effectiveness of the Review Process
#12 Financial Accountability and Transparency
*Larisa B. Gurnick*
Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick@icann.org
310 383-8995
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing listatrt2@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Thank you for your explanation, Denise. Yes, I had dropped from the last call when this was discussed (darn) - apologies for the misunderstanding. Kind regards, Olivier On 19/12/2013 02:26, Denise Michel wrote:
Dear Olivier,
For the sake of clarity (and you may have gotten dropped from the last call when this was discussed?) -- the Team decided to consider prioritizing and asked staff to send this poll. This came out of a request from Zhang Xinsheng to prioritize the recommendations.
Regards, Denise
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Larisa,
I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing. There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented? For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be "priority" recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll _http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. *This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December.*_ Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report.
Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:
#1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time.
#2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Board's functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement.
#3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Director's compensation levels against prevailing standards.
#4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions.
#5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed.
#6 GAC-related recommendation
#7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s).
#8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations.
#9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes
#10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations
#11 Effectiveness of the Review Process
#12 Financial Accountability and Transparency
*/Larisa B. Gurnick/*
Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick@icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>
310 383-8995 <tel:310%20383-8995>
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Olivier, Yes we discussed it but I am still against prioritization so I filled the Doodle with a plus to every subject since I think all our recommendations should be equally important. I think saying no to all recommendations in the Doodle would be to say none is important, so .. Best, Lise Fra: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sendt: 19. december 2013 02:47 Til: atrt2@icann.org Emne: Re: [atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll Thank you for your explanation, Denise. Yes, I had dropped from the last call when this was discussed (darn) - apologies for the misunderstanding. Kind regards, Olivier On 19/12/2013 02:26, Denise Michel wrote: Dear Olivier, For the sake of clarity (and you may have gotten dropped from the last call when this was discussed?) -- the Team decided to consider prioritizing and asked staff to send this poll. This came out of a request from Zhang Xinsheng to prioritize the recommendations. Regards, Denise On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Larisa, I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing. There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented? For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll. Kind regards, Olivier On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: Dear ATRT2 Members, As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be priority recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December. Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report. Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference: #1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time. #2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Boards functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement. #3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Directors compensation levels against prevailing standards. #4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions. #5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed. #6 GAC-related recommendation #7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s). #8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations. #9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes #10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations #11 Effectiveness of the Review Process #12 Financial Accountability and Transparency Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick@icann.org 310 383-8995 <tel:310%20383-8995> _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Hi, I had a family issue yesterday, am just catching up now, and missed doing the poll, but I too am very against the prioritization effort and have spoken against it every time it was brought up. Additionally with only 5 group members having done the poll it seems as though we do not have consensus on even doing such a poll. As for the claim that the team decided to do the poll, I remember it more as a executive decision, the team was not able to reach closure so there was a decision to do it and see what happened. Yes we have members of the team who favor prioritization and a few comments favoring the idea, but most team members have seemed resistant to the idea, and at least as many comments spoke against prioritization as spoke in favor of it (anecdotal impression, I did not count the instances in meetings and conversations). Personally, I see no way in which we will reach consensus on any prioritization scheme. Also, I do not quite understand where the push for prioritization comes from given the low degree of support the idea has gotten over the last 6 months. avri On 19-Dec-13 05:16, Lise Fuhr wrote:
Hi Olivier,
Yes we discussed it but I am still against prioritization – so I filled the Doodle with a plus to every subject since I think all our recommendations should be equally important. I think saying no to all recommendations in the Doodle would be to say none is important, so…..
Best,
Lise
Agree that it doesn't make much sense in trying to prioritize these 12 items.... I missed the end-time of the doodle pool. Sorry. best demi
Yes we discussed it but I am still against prioritization – so I filled the Doodle with a plus to every subject since I think all our recommendations should be equally important. I think saying no to all recommendations in the Doodle would be to say none is important, so…..
Best,
Lise
*Fra:*atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne af *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Sendt:* 19. december 2013 02:47 *Til:* atrt2@icann.org *Emne:* Re: [atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll
Thank you for your explanation, Denise. Yes, I had dropped from the last call when this was discussed (darn) - apologies for the misunderstanding. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 19/12/2013 02:26, Denise Michel wrote:
Dear Olivier,
For the sake of clarity (and you may have gotten dropped from the last call when this was discussed?) -- the Team decided to consider prioritizing and asked staff to send this poll. This came out of a request from Zhang Xinsheng to prioritize the recommendations.
Regards,
Denise
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Larisa,
I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing.l There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented? For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be “priority” recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll _http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. *This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December.*_ Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report.
Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:
#1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time.
#2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Board’s functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement.
#3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Director’s compensation levels against prevailing standards.
#4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions.
#5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed.
#6 GAC-related recommendation
#7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s).
#8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations.
#9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes
#10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations
#11 Effectiveness of the Review Process
#12 Financial Accountability and Transparency
*/Larisa B. Gurnick/*
Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick@icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>
310 383-8995 <tel:310%20383-8995>
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
I unfortunately did not get to the Doodle before it closed, but I already said I would have done the opposite of Lise to express the SAME opinion. Alan At 19/12/2013 05:16 AM, Lise Fuhr wrote:
Hi Olivier,
Yes we discussed it but I am still against prioritization so I filled the Doodle with a plus to every subject since I think all our recommendations should be equally important. I think saying no to all recommendations in the Doodle would be to say none is important, so ..
Best, Lise
Fra: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sendt: 19. december 2013 02:47 Til: atrt2@icann.org Emne: Re: [atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll
Thank you for your explanation, Denise. Yes, I had dropped from the last call when this was discussed (darn) - apologies for the misunderstanding. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 19/12/2013 02:26, Denise Michel wrote: Dear Olivier,
For the sake of clarity (and you may have gotten dropped from the last call when this was discussed?) -- the Team decided to consider prioritizing and asked staff to send this poll. This came out of a request from Zhang Xinsheng to prioritize the recommendations.
Regards, Denise
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Larisa,
I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing. There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented? For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: Dear ATRT2 Members,
As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be priority recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll <http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u>http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December. Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report.
Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:
#1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time.
#2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Boards functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement.
#3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Directors compensation levels against prevailing standards.
#4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions.
#5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed.
#6 GAC-related recommendation
#7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s).
#8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations.
#9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes
#10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations
#11 Effectiveness of the Review Process
#12 Financial Accountability and Transparency
Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>larisa.gurnick@icann.org <tel:310%20383-8995>310 383-8995
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
<mailto:atrt2@icann.org>atrt2@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
<http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>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
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
<http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Hi Olivier, I am kind of confused about the point. For all of these recommendations, I think that the importance of them and the effort to prioritize them are two things. Even if the team thinks the 12 recommendations are all important, in terms of operation, should we tell ICANN to implement all 12 recommendations at the same time? I do not know whether my knowledge regarding prioritization methodology is wrong. The team can decide not to do this. But ICANN has to face it in the process of implementation. Should the team make some suggestions to ICANN in this aspect? Best regards, Xinsheng 发件人: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] 代表 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 发送时间: 2013年12月19日 9:47 收件人: atrt2@icann.org 主题: Re: [atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll Thank you for your explanation, Denise. Yes, I had dropped from the last call when this was discussed (darn) - apologies for the misunderstanding. Kind regards, Olivier On 19/12/2013 02:26, Denise Michel wrote: Dear Olivier, For the sake of clarity (and you may have gotten dropped from the last call when this was discussed?) -- the Team decided to consider prioritizing and asked staff to send this poll. This came out of a request from Zhang Xinsheng to prioritize the recommendations. Regards, Denise On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Larisa, I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing. There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented? For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll. Kind regards, Olivier On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: Dear ATRT2 Members, As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be “priority” recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December. Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report. Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference: #1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time. #2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Board’s functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement. #3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Director’s compensation levels against prevailing standards. #4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions. #5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed. #6 GAC-related recommendation #7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s). #8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations. #9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes #10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations #11 Effectiveness of the Review Process #12 Financial Accountability and Transparency Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick@icann.org 310 383-8995 <tel:310%20383-8995> _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Hi, I agree with Xinsheng: the issue isn't really whether or not we believe some items are more important than others (or whether some recommendations are being demoted), it's whether or not ATRT2 has input to provide to ICANN staff on the order of implementation. Pragmatically speaking, it is unlikely that ICANN staff will be able to implement all recommendations in parallel, so there will be some ordering of implementation regardless of whether we choose to provide input or not. If we do not provide input, then ICANN staff will make the decisions on the order of implementation based on their view of criticality and resource availability. This is, of course, perfectly reasonable. Regards, -drc On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:40 AM, zhang xinsheng <zhangxinsheng@miit.gov.cn> wrote:
Hi Olivier,
I am kind of confused about the point. For all of these recommendations, I think that the importance of them and the effort to prioritize them are two things. Even if the team thinks the 12 recommendations are all important, in terms of operation, should we tell ICANN to implement all 12 recommendations at the same time? I do not know whether my knowledge regarding prioritization methodology is wrong.
The team can decide not to do this. But ICANN has to face it in the process of implementation. Should the team make some suggestions to ICANN in this aspect?
Best regards,
Xinsheng
发件人: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] 代表 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 发送时间: 2013年12月19日 9:47 收件人: atrt2@icann.org 主题: Re: [atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll
Thank you for your explanation, Denise. Yes, I had dropped from the last call when this was discussed (darn) - apologies for the misunderstanding. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 19/12/2013 02:26, Denise Michel wrote: Dear Olivier,
For the sake of clarity (and you may have gotten dropped from the last call when this was discussed?) -- the Team decided to consider prioritizing and asked staff to send this poll. This came out of a request from Zhang Xinsheng to prioritize the recommendations.
Regards, Denise
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Larisa,
I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing. There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented? For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: Dear ATRT2 Members,
As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be “priority” recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December. Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report.
Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:
#1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time.
#2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Board’s functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement.
#3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Director’s compensation levels against prevailing standards.
#4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions.
#5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed.
#6 GAC-related recommendation
#7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s).
#8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations.
#9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes
#10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations
#11 Effectiveness of the Review Process
#12 Financial Accountability and Transparency
Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick@icann.org 310 383-8995
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Hi, I tend to see us offering them 12 recommendations that are all ASAP, with progress on everything before the ATRT report for 2014. It is up to the Board with advice from the staff to determine how soon is really possible and create a schedule that gets everything done. This schedule should be public and subject to community comment, and at the very least will be covered in the yearly ATRT2 report. One of the things we need to count on is that this process has a robust feedback mechanism. I don't however seeing the staff as the control point in this. The report is to the Board and it is up to them, with whatever advice they may decide they need, to give the appropriate marching orders on the implementations. The community then gets to evaluate the implementation as it is going on to make sure that the right things are being done. avri On 19-Dec-13 10:50, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Xinsheng: the issue isn't really whether or not we believe some items are more important than others (or whether some recommendations are being demoted), it's whether or not ATRT2 has input to provide to ICANN staff on the order of implementation. Pragmatically speaking, it is unlikely that ICANN staff will be able to implement all recommendations in parallel, so there will be some ordering of implementation regardless of whether we choose to provide input or not.
If we do not provide input, then ICANN staff will make the decisions on the order of implementation based on their view of criticality and resource availability. This is, of course, perfectly reasonable.
Regards, -drc
On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:40 AM, zhang xinsheng <zhangxinsheng@miit.gov.cn <mailto:zhangxinsheng@miit.gov.cn>> wrote:
Hi Olivier,
I am kind of confused about the point. For all of these recommendations, I think that the importance of them and the effort to prioritize them are two things. Even if the team thinks the 12 recommendations are all important, in terms of operation, should we tell ICANN to implement all 12 recommendations at the same time? I do not know whether my knowledge regarding prioritization methodology is wrong.
The team can decide not to do this. But ICANN has to face it in the process of implementation. Should the team make some suggestions to ICANN in this aspect?
Best regards,
Xinsheng
*发件人:*atrt2-bounces@icann.org <mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] *代表 *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *发送时间:*2013年12月19日9:47 *收件人:*atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org> *主题:*Re: [atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll
Thank you for your explanation, Denise. Yes, I had dropped from the last call when this was discussed (darn) - apologies for the misunderstanding. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 19/12/2013 02:26, Denise Michel wrote:
Dear Olivier,
For the sake of clarity (and you may have gotten dropped from the last call when this was discussed?) -- the Team decided to consider prioritizing and asked staff to send this poll. This came out of a request from Zhang Xinsheng to prioritize the recommendations.
Regards,
Denise
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Larisa,
I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing. There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented? For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be “priority” recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll _http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. *This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December.*_ Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report.
Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:
#1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time.
#2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Board’s functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement.
#3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Director’s compensation levels against prevailing standards.
#4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions.
#5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed.
#6 GAC-related recommendation
#7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s).
#8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations.
#9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes
#10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations
#11 Effectiveness of the Review Process
#12 Financial Accountability and Transparency
*/Larisa B. Gurnick/*
Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick@icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>
310 383-8995 <tel:310%20383-8995>
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ 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! Same as Avri demi On 12/19/2013 02:16 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I tend to see us offering them 12 recommendations that are all ASAP, with progress on everything before the ATRT report for 2014. It is up to the Board with advice from the staff to determine how soon is really possible and create a schedule that gets everything done. This schedule should be public and subject to community comment, and at the very least will be covered in the yearly ATRT2 report. One of the things we need to count on is that this process has a robust feedback mechanism.
I don't however seeing the staff as the control point in this. The report is to the Board and it is up to them, with whatever advice they may decide they need, to give the appropriate marching orders on the implementations. The community then gets to evaluate the implementation as it is going on to make sure that the right things are being done.
avri
On 19-Dec-13 10:50, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Xinsheng: the issue isn't really whether or not we believe some items are more important than others (or whether some recommendations are being demoted), it's whether or not ATRT2 has input to provide to ICANN staff on the order of implementation. Pragmatically speaking, it is unlikely that ICANN staff will be able to implement all recommendations in parallel, so there will be some ordering of implementation regardless of whether we choose to provide input or not.
If we do not provide input, then ICANN staff will make the decisions on the order of implementation based on their view of criticality and resource availability. This is, of course, perfectly reasonable.
Regards, -drc
On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:40 AM, zhang xinsheng <zhangxinsheng@miit.gov.cn <mailto:zhangxinsheng@miit.gov.cn>> wrote:
Hi Olivier,
I am kind of confused about the point. For all of these recommendations, I think that the importance of them and the effort to prioritize them are two things. Even if the team thinks the 12 recommendations are all important, in terms of operation, should we tell ICANN to implement all 12 recommendations at the same time? I do not know whether my knowledge regarding prioritization methodology is wrong.
The team can decide not to do this. But ICANN has to face it in the process of implementation. Should the team make some suggestions to ICANN in this aspect?
Best regards,
Xinsheng
*发件人:*atrt2-bounces@icann.org <mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] *代表 *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *发送时间:*2013年12月19日9:47 *收件人:*atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org> *主题:*Re: [atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll
Thank you for your explanation, Denise. Yes, I had dropped from the last call when this was discussed (darn) - apologies for the misunderstanding. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 19/12/2013 02:26, Denise Michel wrote:
Dear Olivier,
For the sake of clarity (and you may have gotten dropped from the last call when this was discussed?) -- the Team decided to consider prioritizing and asked staff to send this poll. This came out of a request from Zhang Xinsheng to prioritize the recommendations.
Regards,
Denise
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Larisa,
I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing. There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented? For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be “priority” recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll _http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. *This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December.*_ Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report.
Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:
#1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time.
#2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Board’s functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement.
#3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Director’s compensation levels against prevailing standards.
#4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions.
#5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed.
#6 GAC-related recommendation
#7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s).
#8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations.
#9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes
#10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations
#11 Effectiveness of the Review Process
#12 Financial Accountability and Transparency
*/Larisa B. Gurnick/*
Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick@icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>
310 383-8995 <tel:310%20383-8995>
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Since in many cases, the implementation will be done by different parts of ICANN, there will surely be a lot of parallelism, and not particularly visible to us at this time. Alan At 19/12/2013 10:50 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Xinsheng: the issue isn't really whether or not we believe some items are more important than others (or whether some recommendations are being demoted), it's whether or not ATRT2 has input to provide to ICANN staff on the order of implementation. Pragmatically speaking, it is unlikely that ICANN staff will be able to implement all recommendations in parallel, so there will be some ordering of implementation regardless of whether we choose to provide input or not.
If we do not provide input, then ICANN staff will make the decisions on the order of implementation based on their view of criticality and resource availability. This is, of course, perfectly reasonable.
Regards, -drc
On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:40 AM, zhang xinsheng <<mailto:zhangxinsheng@miit.gov.cn>zhangxinsheng@miit.gov.cn> wrote:
Hi Olivier,
I am kind of confused about the point. For all of these recommendations, I think that the importance of them and the effort to prioritize them are two things. Even if the team thinks the 12 recommendations are all important, in terms of operation, should we tell ICANN to implement all 12 recommendations at the same time? I do not know whether my knowledge regarding prioritization methodology is wrong.
The team can decide not to do this. But ICANN has to face it in the process of implementation. Should the team make some suggestions to ICANN in this aspect?
Best regards,
Xinsheng
·¢¼þÈË: <mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org>atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] ´ú±í Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2013Äê12ÔÂ19ÈÕ 9:47 ÊÕ¼þÈË: <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>atrt2@icann.org Ö÷Ìâ: Re: [atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll
Thank you for your explanation, Denise. Yes, I had dropped from the last call when this was discussed (darn) - apologies for the misunderstanding. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 19/12/2013 02:26, Denise Michel wrote: Dear Olivier,
For the sake of clarity (and you may have gotten dropped from the last call when this was discussed?) -- the Team decided to consider prioritizing and asked staff to send this poll. This came out of a request from Zhang Xinsheng to prioritize the recommendations.
Regards, Denise
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Larisa,
I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing. There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented? For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: Dear ATRT2 Members,
As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be ¡°priority¡± recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll <http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u>http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December. Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report.
Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:
#1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time.
#2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Board¡¯s functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement.
#3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Director¡¯s compensation levels against prevailing standards.
#4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions.
#5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed.
#6 GAC-related recommendation
#7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s).
#8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations.
#9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes
#10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations
#11 Effectiveness of the Review Process
#12 Financial Accountability and Transparency
Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>larisa.gurnick@icann.org <tel:310%20383-8995>310 383-8995
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
<mailto:atrt2@icann.org>atrt2@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
--
Olivier MJ Cr¨¦pin-Leblond, PhD
<http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>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
--
Olivier MJ Cr¨¦pin-Leblond, PhD
<http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list<mailto:atrt2@icann.org>atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Dear Mr. Zhang, I understand your suggestion regarding prioritisation is actually completely correct - but the recommendations themselves have an equal priority. It is the implementation which might need prioritisation - and this is based on the resources that ICANN has to implement the recommendations, not on the importance of the recommendations themselves. In this case, I have full confidence in ICANN Staff being able to manage and allocate resources which, in some cases might allow for parallel implementation of some of the recommendations but in others will involve a critical path that will require serial implementation and might therefore require prioritisation of tasks when linking it to dependency of processes. Ideally in large corporations, a project management Gantt Chart would be designed by the implementation Team and optimisation of such a Chart would be possible when allocating staffing person/time. A set of milestones would be identified and a calculation of suitable slack to counteract delays would be effected. Next a risk analysis would be performed to quantify the risk of project delay. Costing of such risks would be evaluated and cost-effective resiliency would be then built in the process delivery of the project so as to reduce financial exposure. In my humble opinion, this is what will determine the order in which the recommendations will be implemented. Kind regards, Olivier On 19/12/2013 15:40, zhang xinsheng wrote:
Hi Olivier,
I am kind of confused about the point. For all of these recommendations, I think that the importance of them and the effort to prioritize them are two things. Even if the team thinks the 12 recommendations are all important, in terms of operation, should we tell ICANN to implement all 12 recommendations at the same time? I do not know whether my knowledge regarding prioritization methodology is wrong.
The team can decide not to do this. But ICANN has to face it in the process of implementation. Should the team make some suggestions to ICANN in this aspect?
Best regards,
Xinsheng
*发 件人:*atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] *代 表 *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *发 送时间:*2013年12月19日9:47 *收件人:*atrt2@icann.org *主题:*Re: [atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll
Thank you for your explanation, Denise. Yes, I had dropped from the last call when this was discussed (darn) - apologies for the misunderstanding. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 19/12/2013 02:26, Denise Michel wrote:
Dear Olivier,
For the sake of clarity (and you may have gotten dropped from the last call when this was discussed?) -- the Team decided to consider prioritizing and asked staff to send this poll. This came out of a request from Zhang Xinsheng to prioritize the recommendations.
Regards,
Denise
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Larisa,
I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing. There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented? For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be “priority” recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll _http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. *This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December.*_Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report.
Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:
#1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time.
#2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Board’s functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement.
#3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Director’s compensation levels against prevailing standards.
#4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions.
#5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed.
#6 GAC-related recommendation
#7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s).
#8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations.
#9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes
#10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations
#11 Effectiveness of the Review Process
#12 Financial Accountability and Transparency
*/Larisa B. Gurnick/*
Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
larisa.gurnick@icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>
310 383-8995 <tel:310%20383-8995>
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Olivier, Thanks. I think this is an example of the distinction between policy and implementation :) Steve Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Zhang,
I understand your suggestion regarding prioritisation is actually completely correct - but the recommendations themselves have an equal priority. It is the implementation which might need prioritisation - and this is based on the resources that ICANN has to implement the recommendations, not on the importance of the recommendations themselves.
In this case, I have full confidence in ICANN Staff being able to manage and allocate resources which, in some cases might allow for parallel implementation of some of the recommendations but in others will involve a critical path that will require serial implementation and might therefore require prioritisation of tasks when linking it to dependency of processes.
Ideally in large corporations, a project management Gantt Chart would be designed by the implementation Team and optimisation of such a Chart would be possible when allocating staffing person/time. A set of milestones would be identified and a calculation of suitable slack to counteract delays would be effected. Next a risk analysis would be performed to quantify the risk of project delay. Costing of such risks would be evaluated and cost-effective resiliency would be then built in the process delivery of the project so as to reduce financial exposure.
In my humble opinion, this is what will determine the order in which the recommendations will be implemented.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 19/12/2013 15:40, zhang xinsheng wrote: Hi Olivier,
I am kind of confused about the point. For all of these recommendations, I think that the importance of them and the effort to prioritize them are two things. Even if the team thinks the 12 recommendations are all important, in terms of operation, should we tell ICANN to implement all 12 recommendations at the same time? I do not know whether my knowledge regarding prioritization methodology is wrong.
The team can decide not to do this. But ICANN has to face it in the process of implementation. Should the team make some suggestions to ICANN in this aspect?
Best regards,
Xinsheng
发 件人: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] 代表 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 发 送时间: 2013年12月19日 9:47 收件人: atrt2@icann.org 主题: Re: [atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll
Thank you for your explanation, Denise. Yes, I had dropped from the last call when this was discussed (darn) - apologies for the misunderstanding. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 19/12/2013 02:26, Denise Michel wrote: Dear Olivier,
For the sake of clarity (and you may have gotten dropped from the last call when this was discussed?) -- the Team decided to consider prioritizing and asked staff to send this poll. This came out of a request from Zhang Xinsheng to prioritize the recommendations.
Regards, Denise
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Larisa,
I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing. There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented? For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote: Dear ATRT2 Members,
As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be “priority” recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December. Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report.
Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:
#1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time.
#2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Board’s functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement.
#3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Director’s compensation levels against prevailing standards.
#4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions.
#5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed.
#6 GAC-related recommendation
#7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s).
#8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations.
#9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes
#10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations
#11 Effectiveness of the Review Process
#12 Financial Accountability and Transparency
Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick@icann.org 310 383-8995
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Olivier, if I understand your message correctly, you are saying that you do not support the concept of us prioritizing the recommendations (a position that I am considering taking myself). In such a case, shouldn't you submit answers, specifically saying NO to each? Alan At 18/12/2013 07:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Larisa,
I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing. There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented? For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate which recommendations you would consider to be priority recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll <http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u>http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December. Depending on the results of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be given, via email, to the possibility of including prioritization guidance in the Final Report.
Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:
#1 The Board should develop objective measures for determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time.
#2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Boards functioning and improvement efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement.
#3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools change over time , and regularly assess Directors compensation levels against prevailing standards.
#4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions.
#5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed.
#6 GAC-related recommendation
#7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth in participation, and new tools that facilitate participation. The Board also should establish a process under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s).
#8 To support public participation, the Board should review capacity of the language services department versus the Community need for the service using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as improving translation quality and timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous improvement of translation and interpretation services including benchmarking of procedures used by international organizations such as the United Nations.
#9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes
#10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of cross-community deliberations
#11 Effectiveness of the Review Process
#12 Financial Accountability and Transparency
Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>larisa.gurnick@icann.org 310 383-8995
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list <mailto:atrt2@icann.org>atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD <http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
David Conrad -
Demi Getschko -
Denise Michel -
Larisa B. Gurnick -
Lise Fuhr -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Steve Crocker -
zhang xinsheng