Preliminary Staff Assessment/Response to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations
Dear ATRT2 Members, Staff appreciates the opportunity to engage with the Review Team in our ongoing information sharing and discussions focused on our mutual goal a Final Report that makes a significant and valuable contribution to ICANN¹s accountability and transparency by offering recommendations that are necessary, feasible and implementable. Having reviewed and considered the Draft ATRT2 Report and Recommendations, staff from numerous departments have prepared the attached document as initial feedback and to support further interactions with ATRT2. Staff welcomes the opportunity for follow-up discussions within the next few days, recognizing the compressed timeline under which the ATRT2 is working. Larisa and Charla have already arranged conference calls on some topics and look forward to supporting additional calls and email inquiries. Staff is pleased to observe that there is a significant alignment between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. This alignment represents a positive development in the evolution of the AoC Reviews and staff suggests that it be noted in the ATRT2¹s observations, and that ongoing work be factored into future reviews. For recommendations where work is already underway, staff proposes, for the ATRT2¹s consideration, that such recommendations be replaced with observations acknowledging the work currently being performed. ICANN commits to providing public status reports, milestones and deliverables to keep the community informed about this work. Such reporting is well aligned with the concept of an annual Accountability Report, requested by the ATRT2. Annual Accountability Reporting also is anticipated to be an important vehicle for communicating ICANN¹s continuous improvement efforts in accountability and the implementation of the Accountability Framework for measuring ICANN¹s progress through benchmarks and metrics, which will be informed by the work of One World Trust. In addition, at the beginning of the ATRT2 process, Fadi had expressed his enthusiasm for the work of the ATRT2 along with his overarching request that the work of the Review Team would result in a small number of focused, high impact recommendations that staff, Board and the community could implement. Based on experience to date, we know that the large number of ATRT2 potential recommendations and sub-recommendations would require a significant amount of resources from staff, Board and community public consultations, tracking, reporting, and ultimately assessment by the subsequent Review Team (for recommendations that address work underway; for new recommendations resources also will be required to develop and execute implementation plans). In considering staff proposals to replace certain recommendations with observations, the Review Team may wish to consider several factors, such as the concern about ³review fatigue,² challenges faced by the Review Team in getting substantive feedback from a diverse cross-section of the ICANN community, as well as requests for simplification of information to make it more accessible to a wider audience, not just those with deep knowledge and experience at ICANN. We hope you find staff¹s initial input on each of the draft recommendations and sub-recommendations useful and staff welcomes the opportunity to elaborate. Again, we would like to acknowledge the value of ATRT2¹s work and its importance to the legitimacy of ICANN. We also wish to thank all the members of the ATRT2 for their dedication and hard work. Staff is committed to supporting and assisting the work of the Review Team during these final few weeks of your work. Regards, Denise Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN denise.michel@icann.org
I am somewhat overwhelmed by the magnitude and overall tone of these comments. Just a few comments to start: - Given the magnitude and the overall negative tone (negative in the sense of "don't issue this Rec.")to many of the comments, I find it had to understand why this assessment is coming at this time and not a lot earlier, given that the current time-table is to have the report all wrapped up in about two weeks. - Although I understand the attractiveness of a small number of focused recommendations, in my mind, there has been a clear message from the community that this is not (solely) what we need now). - I am particularly disturbed by the suggestion that we withdraw a large number of recommendations on the grounds that work is already started in similar area. Replacing these recommendations with observations provides none of the tracking and accountability to actually follow-through that a recommendation does. If work is already underway and likely to succeed, then these are easy wins as recommendations and will not entail significant additional staff effort. On the other hand, if the work that is currently going on is insufficient or does not achieve the desired results, the recommendations are warranted. From a personal point of view on the Cross-community collaboration recommendations, this is too important an issue from the perspective of ICANN credibility to rely on the current discussions all bearing fruit. Alan At 05/12/2013 09:21 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
Staff appreciates the opportunity to engage with the Review Team in our ongoing information sharing and discussions focused on our mutual goal a Final Report that makes a significant and valuable contribution to ICANNs accountability and transparency by offering recommendations that are necessary, feasible and implementable.
Having reviewed and considered the Draft ATRT2 Report and Recommendations, staff from numerous departments have prepared the attached document as initial feedback and to support further interactions with ATRT2. Staff welcomes the opportunity for follow-up discussions within the next few days, recognizing the compressed timeline under which the ATRT2 is working. Larisa and Charla have already arranged conference calls on some topics and look forward to supporting additional calls and email inquiries.
Staff is pleased to observe that there is a significant alignment between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. This alignment represents a positive development in the evolution of the AoC Reviews and staff suggests that it be noted in the ATRT2s observations, and that ongoing work be factored into future reviews. For recommendations where work is already underway, staff proposes, for the ATRT2s consideration, that such recommendations be replaced with observations acknowledging the work currently being performed. ICANN commits to providing public status reports, milestones and deliverables to keep the community informed about this work. Such reporting is well aligned with the concept of an annual Accountability Report, requested by the ATRT2. Annual Accountability Reporting also is anticipated to be an important vehicle for communicating ICANNs continuous improvement efforts in accountability and the implementation of the Accountability Framework for measuring ICANNs progress through benchmarks and metrics, which will be informed by the work of One World Trust. In addition, at the beginning of the ATRT2 process, Fadi had expressed his enthusiasm for the work of the ATRT2 along with his overarching request that the work of the Review Team would result in a small number of focused, high impact recommendations that staff, Board and the community could implement.
Based on experience to date, we know that the large number of ATRT2 potential recommendations and sub-recommendations would require a significant amount of resources from staff, Board and community public consultations, tracking, reporting, and ultimately assessment by the subsequent Review Team (for recommendations that address work underway; for new recommendations resources also will be required to develop and execute implementation plans). In considering staff proposals to replace certain recommendations with observations, the Review Team may wish to consider several factors, such as the concern about review fatigue, challenges faced by the Review Team in getting substantive feedback from a diverse cross-section of the ICANN community, as well as requests for simplification of information to make it more accessible to a wider audience, not just those with deep knowledge and experience at ICANN.
We hope you find staffs initial input on each of the draft recommendations and sub-recommendations useful and staff welcomes the opportunity to elaborate. Again, we would like to acknowledge the value of ATRT2s work and its importance to the legitimacy of ICANN. We also wish to thank all the members of the ATRT2 for their dedication and hard work. Staff is committed to supporting and assisting the work of the Review Team during these final few weeks of your work.
Regards,
Denise
Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN <mailto:denise.michel@icann.org>denise.michel@icann.org Content-Type: application/pdf; name=" Prelim Staff Assessment of & Response" to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"; x-mac-creator=4D535744; x-mac-type=50444620 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Prelim Staff Assessment of &" Response to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Dear Alan, Thank you for your email. The initial staff responses are intended to be constructive (not negative) and to help improve the final report and implementation of adopted recommendations. I hope ATRT2 members will consider them in this context. Staff previously had committed to provide this input by Dec. 9 and submitted it earlier given the tight timeline ATRT2 is using. Staff’s response is reflective of the extensive scope of the ATRT2 work, analysis and draft recommendations, and involved about 20 staff from 9 departments. In order to properly consider feasibility, implementability and advisability of the recommendations, staff undertook detailed analysis, in large measure to be able to have fruitful dialogue with the Review Team *prior* to the issuance of the final report and recommendations (which was our shared goal). (Unfortunately, this had to be done during the busiest time of year for staff -- ICANN's annual meeting). While we understand the ATRT2's desire to adhere to a tight schedule, and while we remain concerned about the feasibility of this timeline (as has been stated on several occasions), helping the ATRT2 issue a final report this year continues to be a staff priority. We hope several staff/ATRT2 discussions can occur next week on the topics identified by staff. I would like to clarify the reason for staff’s suggestion that several of the recommendations be characterized as observations. ICANN has acknowledged the importance of these findings and is making a commitment to provide ongoing reporting and progress updates, including milestones and deliverables to inform the community. Staff is not in agreement with your characterization that the work “will not entail significant additional staff effort.” That has not been staff's experience with ATRT recommendations. The additional effort is comprised of work by the Board and community, as well as staff; it will entail Board consideration, ongoing public consultations, tracking, reporting, and ultimately assessment by the subsequent Review Team in addition to the tracking and reporting of work already underway. The updates provided to the ATRT2 during the past year on the progress of 71 recommendations (ATRT1 – 27; WHOIS RT – 17; SSR RT – 28) consumed an extensive amount of time (e.g. it took over 150 hours from 16 staff members just to provide the initial spreadsheet in response to ATRT2's detailed request for information), and this work is being done in addition to the ongoing responsibilities and public reporting by staff. As you've seen, each Review Team generally has its own preferences which necessitate tailored and incremental presentations, reporting and updates. Staff has offered an alternate approach on some recommendations and it is, of course, up to the ATRT2 to factor this into its work and make final decisions. Again, Staff's initial response to the ATRT2 was provided in the spirit of collaborative work toward the shared goal of continuous improvement to ICANN's accountability and transparency. Please let us know how we can be of further assistance. Regards, Denise Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN denise.michel@icann.org On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
I am somewhat overwhelmed by the magnitude and overall tone of these comments. Just a few comments to start:
- Given the magnitude and the overall negative tone (negative in the sense of "don't issue this Rec.")to many of the comments, I find it had to understand why this assessment is coming at this time and not a lot earlier, given that the current time-table is to have the report all wrapped up in about two weeks.
- Although I understand the attractiveness of a small number of focused recommendations, in my mind, there has been a clear message from the community that this is not (solely) what we need now).
- I am particularly disturbed by the suggestion that we withdraw a large number of recommendations on the grounds that work is already started in similar area. Replacing these recommendations with observations provides none of the tracking and accountability to actually follow-through that a recommendation does. If work is already underway and likely to succeed, then these are easy wins as recommendations and will not entail significant additional staff effort. On the other hand, if the work that is currently going on is insufficient or does not achieve the desired results, the recommendations are warranted. From a personal point of view on the Cross-community collaboration recommendations, this is too important an issue from the perspective of ICANN credibility to rely on the current discussions all bearing fruit.
Alan
At 05/12/2013 09:21 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
Staff appreciates the opportunity to engage with the Review Team in our ongoing information sharing and discussions focused on our mutual goal – a Final Report that makes a significant and valuable contribution to ICANN’s accountability and transparency by offering recommendations that are necessary, feasible and implementable.
Having reviewed and considered the Draft ATRT2 Report and Recommendations, staff from numerous departments have prepared the attached document as initial feedback and to support further interactions with ATRT2. Staff welcomes the opportunity for follow-up discussions within the next few days, recognizing the compressed timeline under which the ATRT2 is working. Larisa and Charla have already arranged conference calls on some topics and look forward to supporting additional calls and email inquiries.
Staff is pleased to observe that there is a *significant alignment*between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. This alignment represents a positive development in the evolution of the AoC Reviews and staff suggests that it be noted in the ATRT2’s observations, and that ongoing work be factored into future reviews. For recommendations where work is already underway, staff proposes, for the ATRT2’s consideration, that such recommendations be replaced with observations acknowledging the work currently being performed. ICANN commits to providing public status reports, milestones and deliverables to keep the community informed about this work. Such reporting is well aligned with the concept of an annual Accountability Report, requested by the ATRT2. Annual Accountability Reporting also is anticipated to be an important vehicle for communicating ICANN’s continuous improvement efforts in accountability and the implementation of the Accountability Framework for measuring ICANN’s progress through benchmarks and metrics, which will be informed by the work of One World Trust. In addition, at the beginning of the ATRT2 process, Fadi had expressed his enthusiasm for the work of the ATRT2 along with his overarching request that the work of the Review Team would result in a small number of focused, high impact recommendations that staff, Board and the community could implement.
Based on experience to date, we know that the large number of ATRT2 potential recommendations and sub-recommendations would require a significant amount of resources from staff, Board and community – public consultations, tracking, reporting, and ultimately assessment by the subsequent Review Team (for recommendations that address work underway; for new recommendations resources also will be required to develop and execute implementation plans). In considering staff proposals to replace certain recommendations with observations, the Review Team may wish to consider several factors, such as the concern about “review fatigue,” challenges faced by the Review Team in getting substantive feedback from a diverse cross-section of the ICANN community, as well as requests for simplification of information to make it more accessible to a wider audience, not just those with deep knowledge and experience at ICANN.
We hope you find staff’s initial input on each of the draft recommendations and sub-recommendations useful and staff welcomes the opportunity to elaborate. Again, we would like to acknowledge the value of ATRT2’s work and its importance to the legitimacy of ICANN. We also wish to thank all the members of the ATRT2 for their dedication and hard work. Staff is committed to supporting and assisting the work of the Review Team during these final few weeks of your work.
Regards,
Denise
Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN denise.michel@icann.org Content-Type: application/pdf; name=" Prelim Staff Assessment of & Response" to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"; x-mac-creator=4D535744; x-mac-type=50444620 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Prelim Staff Assessment of &" Response to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Denise, I am very pleased to see that there is significant alignment between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. However I am also very concerned that this translates to recommendations from Staff to amend some ATRT2 recommendations into observations. As any organisation that is growing and evolving, ICANN needs to mature from being a start-up where things are performed ad-hoc and according to individual initiatives, into a more formal structure where common processes depend on its procedures and by-laws (ICANN's DNA). The implementation of ATRT2 recommendations, in my view, is key to improving ICANN's own DNA and there needs to be goodwill for this transformation. For example, and this is not the only example I could take, I find it very hard to transform recommendations into observations, especially when the requirement for some of these recommendations is clearly mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments itself, such as the measures for Board Performance. (AoC - 9.1a) /_9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users_//: //ICANN//commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders by: (a) //continually assessing and improving ICANN Board of Directors (Board) governance which shall include an ongoing evaluation of Board performance, the Board selection process, the extent to which Board composition meets ICANN's present and future needs, and the consideration of an appeal mechanism for Board decisions; / I have had to read this extract to the Board when it met with the ATRT2 in Buenos Aires and I am sorry to have to repeat the exercise here, but this paragraph, in my understanding, makes it pretty clear that assessing Board governance and Board performance is an integral part of the AoC. Unless Larry Strickling, a co-signatory of this document, tells me otherwise, I am assuming that this section 9.1a is *not* optional. Board members might be subjected to a 360 review but the Board as a whole and the performance of the Board as a whole especially whether the "Board decisions reflect the public interest" is not, to my knowledge, currently being addressed. In a football Team you might have the world's best players as individuals, but the performance of the Team itself might be terrible. I therefore have to most vehemently object to not implementing these recommendations or changing them to an observation, for concern of ICANN not honouring its Commitments in the AoC. This is just one example of the several recommendations I would object to turning into observations, which, might I add, I am concerned might all be completely ignored. I note the observations made about WHOIS-RT as well as SSR-RT appear to be completely ignored by the community - and ICANN would be shrouding itself into a false sense of security if it thought that all is well because the ATRT2 report contains observations rather than recommendations. Jean de la Fontaine (inspired by Aesop's Fables) explained it well. http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue209/cigale.html Warm regards, Olivier On 06/12/2013 18:52, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I am somewhat overwhelmed by the magnitude and overall tone of these comments. Just a few comments to start:
- Given the magnitude and the overall negative tone (negative in the sense of "don't issue this Rec.")to many of the comments, I find it had to understand why this assessment is coming at this time and not a lot earlier, given that the current time-table is to have the report all wrapped up in about two weeks.
- Although I understand the attractiveness of a small number of focused recommendations, in my mind, there has been a clear message from the community that this is not (solely) what we need now).
- I am particularly disturbed by the suggestion that we withdraw a large number of recommendations on the grounds that work is already started in similar area. Replacing these recommendations with observations provides none of the tracking and accountability to actually follow-through that a recommendation does. If work is already underway and likely to succeed, then these are easy wins as recommendations and will not entail significant additional staff effort. On the other hand, if the work that is currently going on is insufficient or does not achieve the desired results, the recommendations are warranted. From a personal point of view on the Cross-community collaboration recommendations, this is too important an issue from the perspective of ICANN credibility to rely on the current discussions all bearing fruit.
Alan
At 05/12/2013 09:21 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
Staff appreciates the opportunity to engage with the Review Team in our ongoing information sharing and discussions focused on our mutual goal -- a Final Report that makes a significant and valuable contribution to ICANN's accountability and transparency by offering recommendations that are necessary, feasible and implementable.
Having reviewed and considered the Draft ATRT2 Report and Recommendations, staff from numerous departments have prepared the attached document as initial feedback and to support further interactions with ATRT2. Staff welcomes the opportunity for follow-up discussions within the next few days, recognizing the compressed timeline under which the ATRT2 is working. Larisa and Charla have already arranged conference calls on some topics and look forward to supporting additional calls and email inquiries.
Staff is pleased to observe that there is a _significant alignment_ between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. This alignment represents a positive development in the evolution of the AoC Reviews and staff suggests that it be noted in the ATRT2's observations, and that ongoing work be factored into future reviews. For recommendations where work is already underway, staff proposes, for the ATRT2's consideration, that such recommendations be replaced with observations acknowledging the work currently being performed. ICANN commits to providing public status reports, milestones and deliverables to keep the community informed about this work. Such reporting is well aligned with the concept of an annual Accountability Report, requested by the ATRT2. Annual Accountability Reporting also is anticipated to be an important vehicle for communicating ICANN's continuous improvement efforts in accountability and the implementation of the Accountability Framework for measuring ICANN's progress through benchmarks and metrics, which will be informed by the work of One World Trust. In addition, at the beginning of the ATRT2 process, Fadi had expressed his enthusiasm for the work of the ATRT2 along with his overarching request that the work of the Review Team would result in a small number of focused, high impact recommendations that staff, Board and the community could implement.
Based on experience to date, we know that the large number of ATRT2 potential recommendations and sub-recommendations would require a significant amount of resources from staff, Board and community -- public consultations, tracking, reporting, and ultimately assessment by the subsequent Review Team (for recommendations that address work underway; for new recommendations resources also will be required to develop and execute implementation plans). In considering staff proposals to replace certain recommendations with observations, the Review Team may wish to consider several factors, such as the concern about "review fatigue," challenges faced by the Review Team in getting substantive feedback from a diverse cross-section of the ICANN community, as well as requests for simplification of information to make it more accessible to a wider audience, not just those with deep knowledge and experience at ICANN.
We hope you find staff's initial input on each of the draft recommendations and sub-recommendations useful and staff welcomes the opportunity to elaborate. Again, we would like to acknowledge the value of ATRT2's work and its importance to the legitimacy of ICANN. We also wish to thank all the members of the ATRT2 for their dedication and hard work. Staff is committed to supporting and assisting the work of the Review Team during these final few weeks of your work.
Regards,
Denise
Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN denise.michel@icann.org <mailto:denise.michel@icann.org> Content-Type: application/pdf; name=" Prelim Staff Assessment of & Response" to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"; x-mac-creator=4D535744; x-mac-type=50444620 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Prelim Staff Assessment of &" Response to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2 <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
Dear Olivier, Thank you for your email. I hope that you’ve had a chance to review my response to Alan’s points, clarifying the reason for staffs' suggestion that several of the recommendations be characterized as observations. We understand there are different viewpoints on this. Staff would be remiss not to offer this approach for ATRT2's consideration. Staff has acknowledged the importance of these findings and is making a commitment to provide ongoing reporting and progress updates, including milestones and deliverables to inform the community. Staff suggestions were rooted in a desire to leverage formal structures where common practices and procedures for project management, monitoring and reporting are already embedded in the operations of ICANN (especially given the alignment between ATRT2 findings and the work already underway at ICANN). In the spirit of goodwill and shared purpose, staff is eager to engage with the ATRT2 members on several points raised in the draft recommendations where further dialogue would be useful in ensuring that the final recommendations will be implementable and useful in achieving the desired objective. You referenced the AoC commitment on assessing and improving Board governance, in particular, and staff has flagged draft recommendations in this area for discussion due to questions and/or implementability concerns. Larisa has prepared another chart highlighting recommendations where such interaction would be useful -- listing a lead ATRT2 member facilitator and lead staff to help ensure conference calls/interactions occur next week. She will send it to the list and stands ready to help support these interactions and accommodate ATRT2 member schedules. Again, thank you for volunteering your time and expertise to this important endeavor. Regards, Denise Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN denise.michel@icann.org On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Dear Denise,
I am very pleased to see that there is significant alignment between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. However I am also very concerned that this translates to recommendations from Staff to amend some ATRT2 recommendations into observations.
As any organisation that is growing and evolving, ICANN needs to mature from being a start-up where things are performed ad-hoc and according to individual initiatives, into a more formal structure where common processes depend on its procedures and by-laws (ICANN's DNA). The implementation of ATRT2 recommendations, in my view, is key to improving ICANN's own DNA and there needs to be goodwill for this transformation.
For example, and this is not the only example I could take, I find it very hard to transform recommendations into observations, especially when the requirement for some of these recommendations is clearly mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments itself, such as the measures for Board Performance. (AoC - 9.1a) *9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users**: **ICANN** commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders by: (a) **continually assessing and improving ICANN Board of Directors (Board) governance which shall include an ongoing evaluation of Board performance, the Board selection process, the extent to which Board composition meets ICANN's present and future needs, and the consideration of an appeal mechanism for Board decisions; *
I have had to read this extract to the Board when it met with the ATRT2 in Buenos Aires and I am sorry to have to repeat the exercise here, but this paragraph, in my understanding, makes it pretty clear that assessing Board governance and Board performance is an integral part of the AoC. Unless Larry Strickling, a co-signatory of this document, tells me otherwise, I am assuming that this section 9.1a is *not* optional.
Board members might be subjected to a 360 review but the Board as a whole and the performance of the Board as a whole especially whether the "Board decisions reflect the public interest" is not, to my knowledge, currently being addressed. In a football Team you might have the world's best players as individuals, but the performance of the Team itself might be terrible. I therefore have to most vehemently object to not implementing these recommendations or changing them to an observation, for concern of ICANN not honouring its Commitments in the AoC.
This is just one example of the several recommendations I would object to turning into observations, which, might I add, I am concerned might all be completely ignored. I note the observations made about WHOIS-RT as well as SSR-RT appear to be completely ignored by the community - and ICANN would be shrouding itself into a false sense of security if it thought that all is well because the ATRT2 report contains observations rather than recommendations.
Jean de la Fontaine (inspired by Aesop's Fables) explained it well. http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue209/cigale.html
Warm regards,
Olivier
On 06/12/2013 18:52, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I am somewhat overwhelmed by the magnitude and overall tone of these comments. Just a few comments to start:
- Given the magnitude and the overall negative tone (negative in the sense of "don't issue this Rec.")to many of the comments, I find it had to understand why this assessment is coming at this time and not a lot earlier, given that the current time-table is to have the report all wrapped up in about two weeks.
- Although I understand the attractiveness of a small number of focused recommendations, in my mind, there has been a clear message from the community that this is not (solely) what we need now).
- I am particularly disturbed by the suggestion that we withdraw a large number of recommendations on the grounds that work is already started in similar area. Replacing these recommendations with observations provides none of the tracking and accountability to actually follow-through that a recommendation does. If work is already underway and likely to succeed, then these are easy wins as recommendations and will not entail significant additional staff effort. On the other hand, if the work that is currently going on is insufficient or does not achieve the desired results, the recommendations are warranted. From a personal point of view on the Cross-community collaboration recommendations, this is too important an issue from the perspective of ICANN credibility to rely on the current discussions all bearing fruit.
Alan
At 05/12/2013 09:21 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
Staff appreciates the opportunity to engage with the Review Team in our ongoing information sharing and discussions focused on our mutual goal – a Final Report that makes a significant and valuable contribution to ICANN’s accountability and transparency by offering recommendations that are necessary, feasible and implementable.
Having reviewed and considered the Draft ATRT2 Report and Recommendations, staff from numerous departments have prepared the attached document as initial feedback and to support further interactions with ATRT2. Staff welcomes the opportunity for follow-up discussions within the next few days, recognizing the compressed timeline under which the ATRT2 is working. Larisa and Charla have already arranged conference calls on some topics and look forward to supporting additional calls and email inquiries.
Staff is pleased to observe that there is a *significant alignment*between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. This alignment represents a positive development in the evolution of the AoC Reviews and staff suggests that it be noted in the ATRT2’s observations, and that ongoing work be factored into future reviews. For recommendations where work is already underway, staff proposes, for the ATRT2’s consideration, that such recommendations be replaced with observations acknowledging the work currently being performed. ICANN commits to providing public status reports, milestones and deliverables to keep the community informed about this work. Such reporting is well aligned with the concept of an annual Accountability Report, requested by the ATRT2. Annual Accountability Reporting also is anticipated to be an important vehicle for communicating ICANN’s continuous improvement efforts in accountability and the implementation of the Accountability Framework for measuring ICANN’s progress through benchmarks and metrics, which will be informed by the work of One World Trust. In addition, at the beginning of the ATRT2 process, Fadi had expressed his enthusiasm for the work of the ATRT2 along with his overarching request that the work of the Review Team would result in a small number of focused, high impact recommendations that staff, Board and the community could implement.
Based on experience to date, we know that the large number of ATRT2 potential recommendations and sub-recommendations would require a significant amount of resources from staff, Board and community – public consultations, tracking, reporting, and ultimately assessment by the subsequent Review Team (for recommendations that address work underway; for new recommendations resources also will be required to develop and execute implementation plans). In considering staff proposals to replace certain recommendations with observations, the Review Team may wish to consider several factors, such as the concern about “review fatigue,” challenges faced by the Review Team in getting substantive feedback from a diverse cross-section of the ICANN community, as well as requests for simplification of information to make it more accessible to a wider audience, not just those with deep knowledge and experience at ICANN.
We hope you find staff’s initial input on each of the draft recommendations and sub-recommendations useful and staff welcomes the opportunity to elaborate. Again, we would like to acknowledge the value of ATRT2’s work and its importance to the legitimacy of ICANN. We also wish to thank all the members of the ATRT2 for their dedication and hard work. Staff is committed to supporting and assisting the work of the Review Team during these final few weeks of your work.
Regards,
Denise
Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN denise.michel@icann.org Content-Type: application/pdf; name=" Prelim Staff Assessment of & Response" to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"; x-mac-creator=4D535744; x-mac-type=50444620 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Prelim Staff Assessment of &" Response to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear ATRT2, To follow up on Denise's email, below is a chart highlighting recommendations where interaction between ATRT2 members and staff would be useful -- listing a lead ATRT2 member facilitator and lead staff to help ensure conference calls/interactions occur next week. Staff stands ready to help support these interactions and accommodate ATRT2 member schedules. Please let me know by end of day on Monday, 9 December your availability during the upcoming week. We can also discuss this or another approach during your call scheduled for Tuesday, 10 December 15:00 - 18:00 UTC. Thank you. Rec. # Description Lead ATRT2 Member Facilitator (Suggested) Lead Staff Schedule Board Performance and Work Practices 1 Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated Avri Doria Amy Stathos 3 Propose to withdraw recommendation; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated Brian Cute Amy Stathos DECISION MAKING TRANSPARENCY AND APPEALS PROCESSES 5 Clarification of recommendation requested; recommendation could be implementable if clarification provided by ICANN is sufficient Brian Cute Amy Stathos 9.3.2 Agree that recommendation is feasible; clarification of recommendation requested Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Amy Stathos 9.4.2 Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Amy Stathos 9.4.3 Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Amy Stathos 9.5 Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Amy Stathos 9.5.1 Clarification of recommendation requested; implementable once clarified Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Amy Stathos 9.5.2 Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Amy Stathos GAC OPERATIONS AND INTERACTIONS 6.4 Clarification of recommendation requested; propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised Larry Strickling Amy Stathos 6.5 Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated Larry Strickling Amy Stathos 6.6 Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised Larry Strickling Amy Stathos 6.8 Propose to withdraw recommendation or revise it; implementable to the extent described/if revised Larry Strickling Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver 10 December 6.9 Propose a revision Larry Strickling Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver 10 December 6.9.1 Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised Larry Strickling Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver 10 December 6.9.2 Clarification of recommendation requested in order to assess feasibility Larry Strickling Mandy Carver, Olof Nordling 10 December 6.9.4 Clarification of recommendation requested Larry Strickling Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver 10 December CROSS-COMMUNITY DELIBERATIONS 10.4.1 Clarification provided; not implementable as stated Alan Greenberg Amy Stathos, Marika Konings AOC REVIEW PROCESS EFFECTIVENESS 11.2 Propose a revision; not implementable as stated Fiona Asonga Denise Michel 11.3 Propose a revision; not implementable as stated Fiona Asonga Denise Michel 11.4 Propose a revision; clarification of recommendation requested; implementable if clarified Fiona Asonga Denise Michel 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 From: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Denise Michel Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 12:00 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: atrt2@icann.org Subject: Re: [atrt2] Preliminary Staff Assessment/Response to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations Dear Olivier, Thank you for your email. I hope that you've had a chance to review my response to Alan's points, clarifying the reason for staffs' suggestion that several of the recommendations be characterized as observations. We understand there are different viewpoints on this. Staff would be remiss not to offer this approach for ATRT2's consideration. Staff has acknowledged the importance of these findings and is making a commitment to provide ongoing reporting and progress updates, including milestones and deliverables to inform the community. Staff suggestions were rooted in a desire to leverage formal structures where common practices and procedures for project management, monitoring and reporting are already embedded in the operations of ICANN (especially given the alignment between ATRT2 findings and the work already underway at ICANN). In the spirit of goodwill and shared purpose, staff is eager to engage with the ATRT2 members on several points raised in the draft recommendations where further dialogue would be useful in ensuring that the final recommendations will be implementable and useful in achieving the desired objective. You referenced the AoC commitment on assessing and improving Board governance, in particular, and staff has flagged draft recommendations in this area for discussion due to questions and/or implementability concerns. Larisa has prepared another chart highlighting recommendations where such interaction would be useful -- listing a lead ATRT2 member facilitator and lead staff to help ensure conference calls/interactions occur next week. She will send it to the list and stands ready to help support these interactions and accommodate ATRT2 member schedules. Again, thank you for volunteering your time and expertise to this important endeavor. Regards, Denise Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN denise.michel@icann.org<mailto:denise.michel@icann.org> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Denise, I am very pleased to see that there is significant alignment between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. However I am also very concerned that this translates to recommendations from Staff to amend some ATRT2 recommendations into observations. As any organisation that is growing and evolving, ICANN needs to mature from being a start-up where things are performed ad-hoc and according to individual initiatives, into a more formal structure where common processes depend on its procedures and by-laws (ICANN's DNA). The implementation of ATRT2 recommendations, in my view, is key to improving ICANN's own DNA and there needs to be goodwill for this transformation. For example, and this is not the only example I could take, I find it very hard to transform recommendations into observations, especially when the requirement for some of these recommendations is clearly mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments itself, such as the measures for Board Performance. (AoC - 9.1a) 9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users: ICANN commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders by: (a) continually assessing and improving ICANN Board of Directors (Board) governance which shall include an ongoing evaluation of Board performance, the Board selection process, the extent to which Board composition meets ICANN's present and future needs, and the consideration of an appeal mechanism for Board decisions; I have had to read this extract to the Board when it met with the ATRT2 in Buenos Aires and I am sorry to have to repeat the exercise here, but this paragraph, in my understanding, makes it pretty clear that assessing Board governance and Board performance is an integral part of the AoC. Unless Larry Strickling, a co-signatory of this document, tells me otherwise, I am assuming that this section 9.1a is *not* optional. Board members might be subjected to a 360 review but the Board as a whole and the performance of the Board as a whole especially whether the "Board decisions reflect the public interest" is not, to my knowledge, currently being addressed. In a football Team you might have the world's best players as individuals, but the performance of the Team itself might be terrible. I therefore have to most vehemently object to not implementing these recommendations or changing them to an observation, for concern of ICANN not honouring its Commitments in the AoC. This is just one example of the several recommendations I would object to turning into observations, which, might I add, I am concerned might all be completely ignored. I note the observations made about WHOIS-RT as well as SSR-RT appear to be completely ignored by the community - and ICANN would be shrouding itself into a false sense of security if it thought that all is well because the ATRT2 report contains observations rather than recommendations. Jean de la Fontaine (inspired by Aesop's Fables) explained it well. http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue209/cigale.html Warm regards, Olivier On 06/12/2013 18:52, Alan Greenberg wrote: I am somewhat overwhelmed by the magnitude and overall tone of these comments. Just a few comments to start: - Given the magnitude and the overall negative tone (negative in the sense of "don't issue this Rec.")to many of the comments, I find it had to understand why this assessment is coming at this time and not a lot earlier, given that the current time-table is to have the report all wrapped up in about two weeks. - Although I understand the attractiveness of a small number of focused recommendations, in my mind, there has been a clear message from the community that this is not (solely) what we need now). - I am particularly disturbed by the suggestion that we withdraw a large number of recommendations on the grounds that work is already started in similar area. Replacing these recommendations with observations provides none of the tracking and accountability to actually follow-through that a recommendation does. If work is already underway and likely to succeed, then these are easy wins as recommendations and will not entail significant additional staff effort. On the other hand, if the work that is currently going on is insufficient or does not achieve the desired results, the recommendations are warranted. From a personal point of view on the Cross-community collaboration recommendations, this is too important an issue from the perspective of ICANN credibility to rely on the current discussions all bearing fruit. Alan At 05/12/2013 09:21 PM, Denise Michel wrote: Dear ATRT2 Members, Staff appreciates the opportunity to engage with the Review Team in our ongoing information sharing and discussions focused on our mutual goal - a Final Report that makes a significant and valuable contribution to ICANN's accountability and transparency by offering recommendations that are necessary, feasible and implementable. Having reviewed and considered the Draft ATRT2 Report and Recommendations, staff from numerous departments have prepared the attached document as initial feedback and to support further interactions with ATRT2. Staff welcomes the opportunity for follow-up discussions within the next few days, recognizing the compressed timeline under which the ATRT2 is working. Larisa and Charla have already arranged conference calls on some topics and look forward to supporting additional calls and email inquiries. Staff is pleased to observe that there is a significant alignment between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. This alignment represents a positive development in the evolution of the AoC Reviews and staff suggests that it be noted in the ATRT2's observations, and that ongoing work be factored into future reviews. For recommendations where work is already underway, staff proposes, for the ATRT2's consideration, that such recommendations be replaced with observations acknowledging the work currently being performed. ICANN commits to providing public status reports, milestones and deliverables to keep the community informed about this work. Such reporting is well aligned with the concept of an annual Accountability Report, requested by the ATRT2. Annual Accountability Reporting also is anticipated to be an important vehicle for communicating ICANN's continuous improvement efforts in accountability and the implementation of the Accountability Framework for measuring ICANN's progress through benchmarks and metrics, which will be informed by the work of One World Trust. In addition, at the beginning of the ATRT2 process, Fadi had expressed his enthusiasm for the work of the ATRT2 along with his overarching request that the work of the Review Team would result in a small number of focused, high impact recommendations that staff, Board and the community could implement. Based on experience to date, we know that the large number of ATRT2 potential recommendations and sub-recommendations would require a significant amount of resources from staff, Board and community - public consultations, tracking, reporting, and ultimately assessment by the subsequent Review Team (for recommendations that address work underway; for new recommendations resources also will be required to develop and execute implementation plans). In considering staff proposals to replace certain recommendations with observations, the Review Team may wish to consider several factors, such as the concern about "review fatigue," challenges faced by the Review Team in getting substantive feedback from a diverse cross-section of the ICANN community, as well as requests for simplification of information to make it more accessible to a wider audience, not just those with deep knowledge and experience at ICANN. We hope you find staff's initial input on each of the draft recommendations and sub-recommendations useful and staff welcomes the opportunity to elaborate. Again, we would like to acknowledge the value of ATRT2's work and its importance to the legitimacy of ICANN. We also wish to thank all the members of the ATRT2 for their dedication and hard work. Staff is committed to supporting and assisting the work of the Review Team during these final few weeks of your work. Regards, Denise Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN denise.michel@icann.org<mailto:denise.michel@icann.org> Content-Type: application/pdf; name=" Prelim Staff Assessment of & Response" to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"; x-mac-creator=4D535744; x-mac-type=50444620 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Prelim Staff Assessment of &" Response to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf" _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Larisa, thanks for this, it is helpful. My availability is as required although the whole week is sprinkled with meetings, conference calls etc. I'll definitely be able to make it to the 15:00-18:00 UTC call on Tuesday. Kind regards, Olivier On 08/12/2013 20:24, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
Dear ATRT2,
To follow up on Denise's email, below is a chart highlighting recommendations where interaction between ATRT2 members and staff would be useful -- listing a lead ATRT2 member facilitator and lead staff to help ensure conference calls/interactions occur next week. Staff stands ready to help support these interactions and accommodate ATRT2 member schedules.
Please let me know by end of day on Monday, 9 December your availability during the upcoming week. We can also discuss this or another approach during your call scheduled for Tuesday, 10 December 15:00 -- 18:00 UTC.
Thank you.
*Rec. #*
*Description*
*Lead ATRT2 Member Facilitator (Suggested)*
*Lead Staff*
*Schedule*
*Board Performance and Work Practices*
1
Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated
Avri Doria
Amy Stathos
3
Propose to withdraw recommendation; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated
Brian Cute
Amy Stathos
*DECISION MAKING TRANSPARENCY AND APPEALS PROCESSES***
5
Clarification of recommendation requested; recommendation could be implementable if clarification provided by ICANN is sufficient
Brian Cute
Amy Stathos
9.3.2
Agree that recommendation is feasible; clarification of recommendation requested
Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Amy Stathos
9.4.2
Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated
Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Amy Stathos
9.4.3
Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated
Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Amy Stathos
9.5
Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised
Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Amy Stathos
9.5.1
Clarification of recommendation requested; implementable once clarified
Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Amy Stathos
9.5.2
Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised
Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Amy Stathos
*GAC OPERATIONS AND INTERACTIONS*
6.4
Clarification of recommendation requested; propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised
Larry Strickling
Amy Stathos
6.5
Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated
Larry Strickling
Amy Stathos
6.6
Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised
Larry Strickling
Amy Stathos
6.8
Propose to withdraw recommendation or revise it; implementable to the extent described/if revised
Larry Strickling
Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver
10 December
6.9
Propose a revision
Larry Strickling
Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver
10 December
6.9.1
Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised
Larry Strickling
Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver
10 December
6.9.2
Clarification of recommendation requested in order to assess feasibility
Larry Strickling
Mandy Carver, Olof Nordling
10 December
6.9.4
Clarification of recommendation requested
Larry Strickling
Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver
10 December
*CROSS-COMMUNITY DELIBERATIONS*
10.4.1
Clarification provided; not implementable as stated
Alan Greenberg
Amy Stathos, Marika Konings
*AOC REVIEW PROCESS EFFECTIVENESS*
11.2
Propose a revision; not implementable as stated
Fiona Asonga
Denise Michel
11.3
Propose a revision; not implementable as stated
Fiona Asonga
Denise Michel
11.4
Propose a revision; clarification of recommendation requested; implementable if clarified
Fiona Asonga
Denise Michel
*/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
*From:*atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Denise Michel *Sent:* Sunday, December 08, 2013 12:00 PM *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* atrt2@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [atrt2] Preliminary Staff Assessment/Response to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations
Dear Olivier,
Thank you for your email. I hope that you've had a chance to review my response to Alan's points, clarifying the reason for staffs' suggestion that several of the recommendations be characterized as observations. We understand there are different viewpoints on this. Staff would be remiss not to offer this approach for ATRT2's consideration. Staff has acknowledged the importance of these findings and is making a commitment to provide ongoing reporting and progress updates, including milestones and deliverables to inform the community. Staff suggestions were rooted in a desire to leverage formal structures where common practices and procedures for project management, monitoring and reporting are already embedded in the operations of ICANN (especially given the alignment between ATRT2 findings and the work already underway at ICANN).
In the spirit of goodwill and shared purpose, staff is eager to engage with the ATRT2 members on several points raised in the draft recommendations where further dialogue would be useful in ensuring that the final recommendations will be implementable and useful in achieving the desired objective. You referenced the AoC commitment on assessing and improving Board governance, in particular, and staff has flagged draft recommendations in this area for discussion due to questions and/or implementability concerns.
Larisa has prepared another chart highlighting recommendations where such interaction would be useful -- listing a lead ATRT2 member facilitator and lead staff to help ensure conference calls/interactions occur next week. She will send it to the list and stands ready to help support these interactions and accommodate ATRT2 member schedules.
Again, thank you for volunteering your time and expertise to this important endeavor.
Regards,
Denise
Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN
denise.michel@icann.org <mailto:denise.michel@icann.org>
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Denise,
I am very pleased to see that there is significant alignment between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. However I am also very concerned that this translates to recommendations from Staff to amend some ATRT2 recommendations into observations.
As any organisation that is growing and evolving, ICANN needs to mature from being a start-up where things are performed ad-hoc and according to individual initiatives, into a more formal structure where common processes depend on its procedures and by-laws (ICANN's DNA). The implementation of ATRT2 recommendations, in my view, is key to improving ICANN's own DNA and there needs to be goodwill for this transformation.
For example, and this is not the only example I could take, I find it very hard to transform recommendations into observations, especially when the requirement for some of these recommendations is clearly mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments itself, such as the measures for Board Performance. (AoC - 9.1a) /_9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users_: ICANN commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders by: (a) continually assessing and improving ICANN Board of Directors (Board) governance which shall include an ongoing evaluation of Board performance, the Board selection process, the extent to which Board composition meets ICANN's present and future needs, and the consideration of an appeal mechanism for Board decisions; /
I have had to read this extract to the Board when it met with the ATRT2 in Buenos Aires and I am sorry to have to repeat the exercise here, but this paragraph, in my understanding, makes it pretty clear that assessing Board governance and Board performance is an integral part of the AoC. Unless Larry Strickling, a co-signatory of this document, tells me otherwise, I am assuming that this section 9.1a is *not* optional.
Board members might be subjected to a 360 review but the Board as a whole and the performance of the Board as a whole especially whether the "Board decisions reflect the public interest" is not, to my knowledge, currently being addressed. In a football Team you might have the world's best players as individuals, but the performance of the Team itself might be terrible. I therefore have to most vehemently object to not implementing these recommendations or changing them to an observation, for concern of ICANN not honouring its Commitments in the AoC.
This is just one example of the several recommendations I would object to turning into observations, which, might I add, I am concerned might all be completely ignored. I note the observations made about WHOIS-RT as well as SSR-RT appear to be completely ignored by the community - and ICANN would be shrouding itself into a false sense of security if it thought that all is well because the ATRT2 report contains observations rather than recommendations.
Jean de la Fontaine (inspired by Aesop's Fables) explained it well. http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue209/cigale.html
Warm regards,
Olivier
On 06/12/2013 18:52, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I am somewhat overwhelmed by the magnitude and overall tone of these comments. Just a few comments to start:
- Given the magnitude and the overall negative tone (negative in the sense of "don't issue this Rec.")to many of the comments, I find it had to understand why this assessment is coming at this time and not a lot earlier, given that the current time-table is to have the report all wrapped up in about two weeks.
- Although I understand the attractiveness of a small number of focused recommendations, in my mind, there has been a clear message from the community that this is not (solely) what we need now).
- I am particularly disturbed by the suggestion that we withdraw a large number of recommendations on the grounds that work is already started in similar area. Replacing these recommendations with observations provides none of the tracking and accountability to actually follow-through that a recommendation does. If work is already underway and likely to succeed, then these are easy wins as recommendations and will not entail significant additional staff effort. On the other hand, if the work that is currently going on is insufficient or does not achieve the desired results, the recommendations are warranted. From a personal point of view on the Cross-community collaboration recommendations, this is too important an issue from the perspective of ICANN credibility to rely on the current discussions all bearing fruit.
Alan
At 05/12/2013 09:21 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
Staff appreciates the opportunity to engage with the Review Team in our ongoing information sharing and discussions focused on our mutual goal -- a Final Report that makes a significant and valuable contribution to ICANN's accountability and transparency by offering recommendations that are necessary, feasible and implementable.
Having reviewed and considered the Draft ATRT2 Report and Recommendations, staff from numerous departments have prepared the attached document as initial feedback and to support further interactions with ATRT2. Staff welcomes the opportunity for follow-up discussions within the next few days, recognizing the compressed timeline under which the ATRT2 is working. Larisa and Charla have already arranged conference calls on some topics and look forward to supporting additional calls and email inquiries.
Staff is pleased to observe that there is a _significant alignment_ between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. This alignment represents a positive development in the evolution of the AoC Reviews and staff suggests that it be noted in the ATRT2's observations, and that ongoing work be factored into future reviews. For recommendations where work is already underway, staff proposes, for the ATRT2's consideration, that such recommendations be replaced with observations acknowledging the work currently being performed. ICANN commits to providing public status reports, milestones and deliverables to keep the community informed about this work. Such reporting is well aligned with the concept of an annual Accountability Report, requested by the ATRT2. Annual Accountability Reporting also is anticipated to be an important vehicle for communicating ICANN's continuous improvement efforts in accountability and the implementation of the Accountability Framework for measuring ICANN's progress through benchmarks and metrics, which will be informed by the work of One World Trust. In addition, at the beginning of the ATRT2 process, Fadi had expressed his enthusiasm for the work of the ATRT2 along with his overarching request that the work of the Review Team would result in a small number of focused, high impact recommendations that staff, Board and the community could implement.
Based on experience to date, we know that the large number of ATRT2 potential recommendations and sub-recommendations would require a significant amount of resources from staff, Board and community -- public consultations, tracking, reporting, and ultimately assessment by the subsequent Review Team (for recommendations that address work underway; for new recommendations resources also will be required to develop and execute implementation plans). In considering staff proposals to replace certain recommendations with observations, the Review Team may wish to consider several factors, such as the concern about "review fatigue," challenges faced by the Review Team in getting substantive feedback from a diverse cross-section of the ICANN community, as well as requests for simplification of information to make it more accessible to a wider audience, not just those with deep knowledge and experience at ICANN.
We hope you find staff's initial input on each of the draft recommendations and sub-recommendations useful and staff welcomes the opportunity to elaborate. Again, we would like to acknowledge the value of ATRT2's work and its importance to the legitimacy of ICANN. We also wish to thank all the members of the ATRT2 for their dedication and hard work. Staff is committed to supporting and assisting the work of the Review Team during these final few weeks of your work.
Regards,
Denise
Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN denise.michel@icann.org <mailto:denise.michel@icann.org> Content-Type: application/pdf; name=" Prelim Staff Assessment of & Response" to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"; x-mac-creator=4D535744; x-mac-type=50444620 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Prelim Staff Assessment of &" Response to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
This chart is very helpful. Unfortunately, I cannot join the call tomorrow. The time is exactly the same as our monthly project meeting for my day job. (Yes, I actually do have a day job :) ) I look forward to a report from tomorrow's call. Steve On Dec 8, 2013, at 3:24 PM, "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick@icann.org> wrote:
Dear ATRT2, To follow up on Denise’s email, below is a chart highlighting recommendations where interaction between ATRT2 members and staff would be useful -- listing a lead ATRT2 member facilitator and lead staff to help ensure conference calls/interactions occur next week. Staff stands ready to help support these interactions and accommodate ATRT2 member schedules.
Please let me know by end of day on Monday, 9 December your availability during the upcoming week. We can also discuss this or another approach during your call scheduled for Tuesday, 10 December 15:00 – 18:00 UTC.
Thank you.
Rec. # Description Lead ATRT2 Member Facilitator (Suggested) Lead Staff Schedule BOARD PERFORMANCE AND WORK PRACTICES 1 Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated
Avri Doria Amy Stathos
3 Propose to withdraw recommendation; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated Brian Cute Amy Stathos
DECISION MAKING TRANSPARENCY AND APPEALS PROCESSES 5
Clarification of recommendation requested; recommendation could be implementable if clarification provided by ICANN is sufficient Brian Cute Amy Stathos
9.3.2
Agree that recommendation is feasible; clarification of recommendation requested Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Amy Stathos
9.4.2
Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated
Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Amy Stathos
9.4.3
Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Amy Stathos
9.5
Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Amy Stathos
9.5.1
Clarification of recommendation requested; implementable once clarified Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Amy Stathos
9.5.2 Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Amy Stathos
GAC OPERATIONS AND INTERACTIONS 6.4
Clarification of recommendation requested; propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised Larry Strickling Amy Stathos
6.5
Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated Larry Strickling Amy Stathos
6.6
Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised Larry Strickling Amy Stathos
6.8
Propose to withdraw recommendation or revise it; implementable to the extent described/if revised Larry Strickling Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver 10 December 6.9
Propose a revision Larry Strickling Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver 10 December 6.9.1
Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised Larry Strickling Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver 10 December 6.9.2
Clarification of recommendation requested in order to assess feasibility Larry Strickling Mandy Carver, Olof Nordling 10 December 6.9.4 Clarification of recommendation requested Larry Strickling Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver 10 December CROSS-COMMUNITY DELIBERATIONS 10.4.1 Clarification provided; not implementable as stated Alan Greenberg Amy Stathos, Marika Konings
AOC REVIEW PROCESS EFFECTIVENESS 11.2 Propose a revision; not implementable as stated Fiona Asonga Denise Michel
11.3 Propose a revision; not implementable as stated Fiona Asonga Denise Michel
11.4 Propose a revision; clarification of recommendation requested; implementable if clarified Fiona Asonga Denise Michel
Larisa B. Gurnick Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) larisa.gurnick@icann.org 310 383-8995
From: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Denise Michel Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 12:00 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: atrt2@icann.org Subject: Re: [atrt2] Preliminary Staff Assessment/Response to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations
Dear Olivier,
Thank you for your email. I hope that you’ve had a chance to review my response to Alan’s points, clarifying the reason for staffs' suggestion that several of the recommendations be characterized as observations. We understand there are different viewpoints on this. Staff would be remiss not to offer this approach for ATRT2's consideration. Staff has acknowledged the importance of these findings and is making a commitment to provide ongoing reporting and progress updates, including milestones and deliverables to inform the community. Staff suggestions were rooted in a desire to leverage formal structures where common practices and procedures for project management, monitoring and reporting are already embedded in the operations of ICANN (especially given the alignment between ATRT2 findings and the work already underway at ICANN).
In the spirit of goodwill and shared purpose, staff is eager to engage with the ATRT2 members on several points raised in the draft recommendations where further dialogue would be useful in ensuring that the final recommendations will be implementable and useful in achieving the desired objective. You referenced the AoC commitment on assessing and improving Board governance, in particular, and staff has flagged draft recommendations in this area for discussion due to questions and/or implementability concerns.
Larisa has prepared another chart highlighting recommendations where such interaction would be useful -- listing a lead ATRT2 member facilitator and lead staff to help ensure conference calls/interactions occur next week. She will send it to the list and stands ready to help support these interactions and accommodate ATRT2 member schedules.
Again, thank you for volunteering your time and expertise to this important endeavor.
Regards, Denise
Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN denise.michel@icann.org
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Denise,
I am very pleased to see that there is significant alignment between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. However I am also very concerned that this translates to recommendations from Staff to amend some ATRT2 recommendations into observations.
As any organisation that is growing and evolving, ICANN needs to mature from being a start-up where things are performed ad-hoc and according to individual initiatives, into a more formal structure where common processes depend on its procedures and by-laws (ICANN's DNA). The implementation of ATRT2 recommendations, in my view, is key to improving ICANN's own DNA and there needs to be goodwill for this transformation.
For example, and this is not the only example I could take, I find it very hard to transform recommendations into observations, especially when the requirement for some of these recommendations is clearly mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments itself, such as the measures for Board Performance. (AoC - 9.1a) 9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users: ICANN commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders by: (a) continually assessing and improving ICANN Board of Directors (Board) governance which shall include an ongoing evaluation of Board performance, the Board selection process, the extent to which Board composition meets ICANN's present and future needs, and the consideration of an appeal mechanism for Board decisions;
I have had to read this extract to the Board when it met with the ATRT2 in Buenos Aires and I am sorry to have to repeat the exercise here, but this paragraph, in my understanding, makes it pretty clear that assessing Board governance and Board performance is an integral part of the AoC. Unless Larry Strickling, a co-signatory of this document, tells me otherwise, I am assuming that this section 9.1a is *not* optional.
Board members might be subjected to a 360 review but the Board as a whole and the performance of the Board as a whole especially whether the "Board decisions reflect the public interest" is not, to my knowledge, currently being addressed. In a football Team you might have the world's best players as individuals, but the performance of the Team itself might be terrible. I therefore have to most vehemently object to not implementing these recommendations or changing them to an observation, for concern of ICANN not honouring its Commitments in the AoC.
This is just one example of the several recommendations I would object to turning into observations, which, might I add, I am concerned might all be completely ignored. I note the observations made about WHOIS-RT as well as SSR-RT appear to be completely ignored by the community - and ICANN would be shrouding itself into a false sense of security if it thought that all is well because the ATRT2 report contains observations rather than recommendations.
Jean de la Fontaine (inspired by Aesop's Fables) explained it well. http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue209/cigale.html
Warm regards,
Olivier
On 06/12/2013 18:52, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I am somewhat overwhelmed by the magnitude and overall tone of these comments. Just a few comments to start:
- Given the magnitude and the overall negative tone (negative in the sense of "don't issue this Rec.")to many of the comments, I find it had to understand why this assessment is coming at this time and not a lot earlier, given that the current time-table is to have the report all wrapped up in about two weeks.
- Although I understand the attractiveness of a small number of focused recommendations, in my mind, there has been a clear message from the community that this is not (solely) what we need now).
- I am particularly disturbed by the suggestion that we withdraw a large number of recommendations on the grounds that work is already started in similar area. Replacing these recommendations with observations provides none of the tracking and accountability to actually follow-through that a recommendation does. If work is already underway and likely to succeed, then these are easy wins as recommendations and will not entail significant additional staff effort. On the other hand, if the work that is currently going on is insufficient or does not achieve the desired results, the recommendations are warranted. From a personal point of view on the Cross-community collaboration recommendations, this is too important an issue from the perspective of ICANN credibility to rely on the current discussions all bearing fruit.
Alan
At 05/12/2013 09:21 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
Staff appreciates the opportunity to engage with the Review Team in our ongoing information sharing and discussions focused on our mutual goal – a Final Report that makes a significant and valuable contribution to ICANN’s accountability and transparency by offering recommendations that are necessary, feasible and implementable.
Having reviewed and considered the Draft ATRT2 Report and Recommendations, staff from numerous departments have prepared the attached document as initial feedback and to support further interactions with ATRT2. Staff welcomes the opportunity for follow-up discussions within the next few days, recognizing the compressed timeline under which the ATRT2 is working. Larisa and Charla have already arranged conference calls on some topics and look forward to supporting additional calls and email inquiries.
Staff is pleased to observe that there is a significant alignment between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. This alignment represents a positive development in the evolution of the AoC Reviews and staff suggests that it be noted in the ATRT2’s observations, and that ongoing work be factored into future reviews. For recommendations where work is already underway, staff proposes, for the ATRT2’s consideration, that such recommendations be replaced with observations acknowledging the work currently being performed. ICANN commits to providing public status reports, milestones and deliverables to keep the community informed about this work. Such reporting is well aligned with the concept of an annual Accountability Report, requested by the ATRT2. Annual Accountability Reporting also is anticipated to be an important vehicle for communicating ICANN’s continuous improvement efforts in accountability and the implementation of the Accountability Framework for measuring ICANN’s progress through benchmarks and metrics, which will be informed by the work of One World Trust. In addition, at the beginning of the ATRT2 process, Fadi had expressed his enthusiasm for the work of the ATRT2 along with his overarching request that the work of the Review Team would result in a small number of focused, high impact recommendations that staff, Board and the community could implement.
Based on experience to date, we know that the large number of ATRT2 potential recommendations and sub-recommendations would require a significant amount of resources from staff, Board and community – public consultations, tracking, reporting, and ultimately assessment by the subsequent Review Team (for recommendations that address work underway; for new recommendations resources also will be required to develop and execute implementation plans). In considering staff proposals to replace certain recommendations with observations, the Review Team may wish to consider several factors, such as the concern about “review fatigue,” challenges faced by the Review Team in getting substantive feedback from a diverse cross-section of the ICANN community, as well as requests for simplification of information to make it more accessible to a wider audience, not just those with deep knowledge and experience at ICANN.
We hope you find staff’s initial input on each of the draft recommendations and sub-recommendations useful and staff welcomes the opportunity to elaborate. Again, we would like to acknowledge the value of ATRT2’s work and its importance to the legitimacy of ICANN. We also wish to thank all the members of the ATRT2 for their dedication and hard work. Staff is committed to supporting and assisting the work of the Review Team during these final few weeks of your work.
Regards,
Denise
Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN denise.michel@icann.org Content-Type: application/pdf; name=" Prelim Staff Assessment of & Response" to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"; x-mac-creator=4D535744; x-mac-type=50444620 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Prelim Staff Assessment of &" Response to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
My apologies too... I'll be in travel in that exact time window... (for some unknown reasons, I have in my agenda that call scheduled for today...) Sorry again. I will look forward the report, to catch up with the discussions. best demi On 12/09/2013 05:06 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
This chart is very helpful.
Unfortunately, I cannot join the call tomorrow. The time is exactly the same as our monthly project meeting for my day job. (Yes, I actually do have a day job :) )
I look forward to a report from tomorrow's call.
Steve
On Dec 8, 2013, at 3:24 PM, "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick@icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear ATRT2, To follow up on Denise’s email, below is achart highlighting recommendations where interaction between ATRT2 members and staff would be useful -- listing a lead ATRT2 member facilitator and lead staff to help ensure conference calls/interactions occur next week. Staff stands ready to help support these interactions and accommodate ATRT2 member schedules. Please let me know by end of day on Monday, 9 December your availability during the upcoming week. We can also discuss this or another approach during your call scheduled for Tuesday, 10 December 15:00 – 18:00 UTC. Thank you. *Rec. #*
*Description*
*Lead ATRT2 Member Facilitator (Suggested)*
*Lead Staff*
*Schedule* *BOARD PERFORMANCE AND WORK PRACTICES* 1
Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated
Avri Doria
Amy Stathos
3
Propose to withdraw recommendation; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated
Brian Cute
Amy Stathos
*DECISION MAKING TRANSPARENCY AND APPEALS PROCESSES*** 5
Clarification of recommendation requested; recommendation could be implementable if clarification provided by ICANN is sufficient
Brian Cute
Amy Stathos
9.3.2
Agree that recommendation is feasible; clarification of recommendation requested
Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Amy Stathos
9.4.2
Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated
Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Amy Stathos
9.4.3
Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated
Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Amy Stathos
9.5
Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised
Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Amy Stathos
9.5.1
Clarification of recommendation requested; implementable once clarified
Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Amy Stathos
9.5.2
Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised
Avri Doria, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Amy Stathos
*GAC OPERATIONS AND INTERACTIONS* 6.4
Clarification of recommendation requested; propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised
Larry Strickling
Amy Stathos
6.5
Clarification of recommendation requested; difficult to implement/not implementable as stated
Larry Strickling
Amy Stathos
6.6
Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised
Larry Strickling
Amy Stathos
6.8
Propose to withdraw recommendation or revise it; implementable to the extent described/if revised
Larry Strickling
Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver
10 December 6.9
Propose a revision
Larry Strickling
Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver
10 December 6.9.1
Propose a revision; implementation feasible if revised
Larry Strickling
Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver
10 December 6.9.2
Clarification of recommendation requested in order to assess feasibility
Larry Strickling
Mandy Carver, Olof Nordling
10 December 6.9.4
Clarification of recommendation requested
Larry Strickling
Tarek Kamel, Mandy Carver
10 December *CROSS-COMMUNITY DELIBERATIONS* 10.4.1
Clarification provided; not implementable as stated
Alan Greenberg
Amy Stathos, Marika Konings
*AOC REVIEW PROCESS EFFECTIVENESS* 11.2
Propose a revision; not implementable as stated
Fiona Asonga
Denise Michel
11.3
Propose a revision; not implementable as stated
Fiona Asonga
Denise Michel
11.4
Propose a revision; clarification of recommendation requested; implementable if clarified
Fiona Asonga
Denise Michel
*/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 *From:*atrt2-bounces@icann.org <mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org <mailto:bounces@icann.org>]*On Behalf Of*Denise Michel *Sent:*Sunday, December 08, 2013 12:00 PM *To:*Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:*atrt2@icann.org <mailto:atrt2@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [atrt2] Preliminary Staff Assessment/Response to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations Dear Olivier, Thank you for your email. I hope that you’ve had a chance to review my response to Alan’s points, clarifying the reason for staffs' suggestion that several of the recommendations be characterized as observations. We understand there are different viewpoints on this. Staff would be remiss not to offer this approach for ATRT2's consideration. Staff has acknowledged the importance of these findings and is making a commitment to provide ongoing reporting and progress updates, including milestones and deliverables to inform the community. Staff suggestions were rooted in a desire to leverage formal structures where common practices and procedures for project management, monitoring and reporting are already embedded in the operations of ICANN (especially given the alignment between ATRT2 findings and the work already underway at ICANN). In the spirit of goodwill and shared purpose, staff is eager to engage with the ATRT2 members on several points raised in the draft recommendations where further dialogue would be useful in ensuring that the final recommendations will be implementable and useful in achieving the desired objective. You referenced the AoC commitment on assessing and improving Board governance, in particular, and staff has flagged draft recommendations in this area for discussion due to questions and/or implementability concerns. Larisa has prepared another chart highlighting recommendations where such interaction would be useful -- listing a lead ATRT2 member facilitator and lead staff to help ensure conference calls/interactions occur next week. She will send it to the list and stands ready to help support these interactions and accommodate ATRT2 member schedules. Again, thank you for volunteering your time and expertise to this important endeavor. Regards, Denise Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN denise.michel@icann.org <mailto:denise.michel@icann.org>
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Denise,
I am very pleased to see that there is significant alignment between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. However I am also very concerned that this translates to recommendations from Staff to amend some ATRT2 recommendations into observations.
As any organisation that is growing and evolving, ICANN needs to mature from being a start-up where things are performed ad-hoc and according to individual initiatives, into a more formal structure where common processes depend on its procedures and by-laws (ICANN's DNA). The implementation of ATRT2 recommendations, in my view, is key to improving ICANN's own DNA and there needs to be goodwill for this transformation.
For example, and this is not the only example I could take, I find it very hard to transform recommendations into observations, especially when the requirement for some of these recommendations is clearly mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments itself, such as the measures for Board Performance. (AoC - 9.1a) /_9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users_: ICANN commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability, and transparency so as to ensure that the outcomes of its decision-making will reflect the public interest and be accountable to all stakeholders by: (a)continually assessing and improving ICANN Board of Directors (Board) governance which shall include an ongoing evaluation of Board performance, the Board selection process, the extent to which Board composition meets ICANN's present and future needs, and the consideration of an appeal mechanism for Board decisions;/
I have had to read this extract to the Board when it met with the ATRT2 in Buenos Aires and I am sorry to have to repeat the exercise here, but this paragraph, in my understanding, makes it pretty clear that assessing Board governance and Board performance is an integral part of the AoC. Unless Larry Strickling, a co-signatory of this document, tells me otherwise, I am assuming that this section 9.1a is *not* optional.
Board members might be subjected to a 360 review but the Board as a whole and the performance of the Board as a whole especially whether the "Board decisions reflect the public interest" is not, to my knowledge, currently being addressed. In a football Team you might have the world's best players as individuals, but the performance of the Team itself might be terrible. I therefore have to most vehemently object to not implementing these recommendations or changing them to an observation, for concern of ICANN not honouring its Commitments in the AoC.
This is just one example of the several recommendations I would object to turning into observations, which, might I add, I am concerned might all be completely ignored. I note the observations made about WHOIS-RT as well as SSR-RT appear to be completely ignored by the community - and ICANN would be shrouding itself into a false sense of security if it thought that all is well because the ATRT2 report contains observations rather than recommendations.
Jean de la Fontaine (inspired by Aesop's Fables) explained it well. http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue209/cigale.html
Warm regards,
Olivier
On 06/12/2013 18:52, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I am somewhat overwhelmed by the magnitude and overall tone of these comments. Just a few comments to start:
- Given the magnitude and the overall negative tone (negative in the sense of "don't issue this Rec.")to many of the comments, I find it had to understand why this assessment is coming at this time and not a lot earlier, given that the current time-table is to have the report all wrapped up in about two weeks.
- Although I understand the attractiveness of a small number of focused recommendations, in my mind, there has been a clear message from the community that this is not (solely) what we need now).
- I am particularly disturbed by the suggestion that we withdraw a large number of recommendations on the grounds that work is already started in similar area. Replacing these recommendations with observations provides none of the tracking and accountability to actually follow-through that a recommendation does. If work is already underway and likely to succeed, then these are easy wins as recommendations and will not entail significant additional staff effort. On the other hand, if the work that is currently going on is insufficient or does not achieve the desired results, the recommendations are warranted. From a personal point of view on the Cross-community collaboration recommendations, this is too important an issue from the perspective of ICANN credibility to rely on the current discussions all bearing fruit.
Alan
At 05/12/2013 09:21 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
Dear ATRT2 Members,
Staff appreciates the opportunity to engage with the Review Team in our ongoing information sharing and discussions focused on our mutual goal – a Final Report that makes a significant and valuable contribution to ICANN’s accountability and transparency by offering recommendations that are necessary, feasible and implementable.
Having reviewed and considered the Draft ATRT2 Report and Recommendations, staff from numerous departments have prepared the attached document as initial feedback and to support further interactions with ATRT2. Staff welcomes the opportunity for follow-up discussions within the next few days, recognizing the compressed timeline under which the ATRT2 is working. Larisa and Charla have already arranged conference calls on some topics and look forward to supporting additional calls and email inquiries.
Staff is pleased to observe that there is a_significant alignment_between ATRT2 findings and draft recommendations, and work that is underway at ICANN. This alignment represents a positive development in the evolution of the AoC Reviews and staff suggests that it be noted in the ATRT2’s observations, and that ongoing work be factored into future reviews. For recommendations where work is already underway, staff proposes, for the ATRT2’s consideration, that such recommendations be replaced with observations acknowledging the work currently being performed. ICANN commits to providing public status reports, milestones and deliverables to keep the community informed about this work. Such reporting is well aligned with the concept of an annual Accountability Report, requested by the ATRT2. Annual Accountability Reporting also is anticipated to be an important vehicle for communicating ICANN’s continuous improvement efforts in accountability and the implementation of the Accountability Framework for measuring ICANN’s progress through benchmarks and metrics, which will be informed by the work of One World Trust. In addition, at the beginning of the ATRT2 process, Fadi had expressed his enthusiasm for the work of the ATRT2 along with his overarching request that the work of the Review Team would result in a small number of focused, high impact recommendations that staff, Board and the community could implement.
Based on experience to date, we know that the large number of ATRT2 potential recommendations and sub-recommendations would require a significant amount of resources from staff, Board and community – public consultations, tracking, reporting, and ultimately assessment by the subsequent Review Team (for recommendations that address work underway; for new recommendations resources also will be required to develop and execute implementation plans). In considering staff proposals to replace certain recommendations with observations, the Review Team may wish to consider several factors, such as the concern about “review fatigue,” challenges faced by the Review Team in getting substantive feedback from a diverse cross-section of the ICANN community, as well as requests for simplification of information to make it more accessible to a wider audience, not just those with deep knowledge and experience at ICANN.
We hope you find staff’s initial input on each of the draft recommendations and sub-recommendations useful and staff welcomes the opportunity to elaborate. Again, we would like to acknowledge the value of ATRT2’s work and its importance to the legitimacy of ICANN. We also wish to thank all the members of the ATRT2 for their dedication and hard work. Staff is committed to supporting and assisting the work of the Review Team during these final few weeks of your work.
Regards,
Denise
Denise Michel VP Strategic Initiatives ICANN denise.michel@icann.org <mailto:denise.michel@icann.org> Content-Type: application/pdf; name=" Prelim Staff Assessment of & Response" to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"; x-mac-creator=4D535744; x-mac-type=50444620 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Prelim Staff Assessment of &" Response to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations - 5 Dec 2013.pdf"
_______________________________________________ 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 <mailto:atrt2@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Demi Getschko -
Denise Michel -
Larisa B. Gurnick -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Steve Crocker