[atrt2] Draft Report - version 1 for review

Steve Crocker Steve at shinkuro.com
Wed Oct 9 17:04:55 UTC 2013


Continuing with my comments on the draft Larisa sent out, I have now read the appendix on the SSR-RT recommendations.  Also, I have feedback from Karine on the main text.

Karine writes:

> Having looked rapidly through the report, i saw a number of
> recommendations involving creating "benchmarks" and "metrics" but no
> specific example of such metrics, e.g. P 10 "metrics are still needed for
> evaluating the success of Board improvement efforts". I also see in the
> draft report that "ICANN has engaged One World Trust (OWT) to assist with
> the development of Accountability and Transparency Benchmarks and Metrics.
> The final report is expected by 31 December 2013.  Staff will facilitate
> ATRT 2 input and feedback to OWT.  Periodic updates on progress of work
> will also be shared. The ongoing implementation of Accountability and
> Transparency Benchmarks and Metrics into ICANN operations will include the
> incorporation of appropriate benchmarks and metrics into the reporting of
> implementation progress."
> Just to note that it might be difficult until we have the report on the
> metrics from OWT to respond to the fairly numerous suggestions surrounding
> metrics, monitoring progress and benchmarks, unless the drafters already
> have ideas of the types of metrics they foresee us implementing. I will
> find out more about the specific contract to OWT.

I concur.  I'm not sure how much can be done about this before publishing this draft, so I expect we will make this point again during the public comment period and hope for substantive improvement before the final version.

With respect to the SSR-RT, as I said before, I am limiting my comments now to a handful of editorial or factual details that I think should be fixed before the report is released for public comment.

> Implementability

This word is used as a title for a subsection in response to each of the SSR-RT recommendations.  In some cases, the text does assess what we know about whether the recommendation is implementable, but in other cases the text addresses how far along the implementation has progressed.  These are different concepts and should be labeled differently.

> page 12, There was no comment period or other mechanism for community input associated with the publication of the SSAC Operating Procedures

This wording inappropriately implies there should be a public comment period.  The SSAC Operating Procedures is an internal document that captures the processes in effect.  It is not a policy document.  Publication is done for transparency and comments, if any, will likely be considered, but it was never intended nor would it be appropriate to suggest there is a need for community feedback or approval.


No other immediate comments on the SSR-RT analysis except that I found many of the SSR-RT recommendations vague, so I think the next time the SSR-RT is convened, it ought to be asked for recommendations that are concrete and measurable.





I have now read and scribbled comments on the draft that Larisa sent out.  I have not had time to pay attention to the subsequent messages, so I have likely missed a few key sections.  Also, I have not had time to read the appendix devoted to the implementation of the SSR-RT recommendations.  I will try to do so on the plane to Los Angeles tomorrow evening, but I wanted to make the deadline for comments this evening.

I am also including Karine Perset, Director of Board Support.  Once the Board receives the report, we will have a LOT of work to do to evaluate each recommendation, determine our response, and provide formal feedback.  To the extent we can organize and plan that work now, we'll be in better shape to complete our side of this when we receive the final report.

I am also conscious that I am in the unique position of having three bites at this apple.  I am responding now as a member of the team, I will be able to include my comments during the public comment period, and, of course, I will be part of the Board's formal response.  Accordingly, I am limiting my comments now to a handful of editorial or factual details that I think should be fixed before the report is released for public comment.

I am truly impressed by the enormous amount of work everyone has done, the positive spirit that everyone has brought to the process, and the quite excellent report that is emerging.




> page 4, Getting the Review Team started with a compile implementation report

Implementation of what?  The last ATRT set of recommendations?  The recommendations of all of the review teams?  I'm not objecting, just suggesting words be added for clarification.

> page 9, second para: The implementation discrete action taken by the NomCom…

I did not understand what this sentence was trying to say.

> page 10, recommendation 1c in the table, Improve NomCom outreach/PR

I assume "PR" means public relations, but I think this should be spelled out.

> page 12, needn't be so obsessed by secrecy and that this was positive

Somewhat unclear wording

> ibid, impetuous

Yes, this should be "impetus"

> ibid, bullet (a), guaranty

Should be "guarantee," I believe.

> page 15, paragraph 5.1, ATRT1 also found that compensation of directors was an issue closely associated with the theme pif developing the ICANN Board's experience and collective skill-set…

Has compensation had any direct bearing on the number or quality of candidates?  I am not aware of any data on this?  Equally, I am not aware of any data regarding the effect of compensation on the performance of Board members.  I think it's appropriate to note that compensation has been put in place, but I don't know what we should say, if anything, about whether it's achieving its intended purpose.

> ibid, 5.3 The Board delayed acceptance of Recommendation 5…

This suggests the Board had a choice.  Counsel said it was necessary to follow an extended course involving outside assessment.  We went down this path as expeditiously as possible.  I think the wording here creates the wrong impression, and I will push back vigorously if this assessment is in the public report.

> ibid, ATRT2 notes that payments were not offered until August 2012, a significant delay from the date of approval to implementation.

This is factually incorrect, which we have already documented.

> page 16, 6.1 Findings of ATRT1

This paragraph is vague.  What are the specifics?

> page 25, a new ICANN member was hired under a temporary contract…

My understanding is the use of a temporary contract was needed to bring the person on board and it was one part of the process to bring the person in permanently.  I would check on the actual sequence and status.  The wording here suggests a lack of whole-hearted management support, which does not match my understanding of what actually happened.

> ibid, ACIG staff member

What is ACIG?

> page 46, 14.7 Hypothesis of problem: While ICANN has a hotline that is meant to serve the whistle blowing activities, evidence does not indicate that this program has been used effectively.

What evidence?  Doesn't this paragraph put ATRT2 in the position of making an unsupported charge?


On Oct 5, 2013, at 8:20 PM, "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear Review Team,
> Attached is the Draft Report for your review.  It consolidates all the sections circulated by the Review Team thus far.  This document is also available on the wiki.   
> Please note the following:
> 1.       Brian will add text to create a smooth transition from the introduction section to the “templates” or detailed assessment section.
> 2.       Green highlights reference the wiki rows for ease of reference – these will need to be removed before publication.
> 3.       References to New Recommendations made by ATRT 2 and the underlying “templates” or detailed assessments will need to be mapped out and numbered more clearly.
> 4.       I took the liberty to provide several suggested edits in the beginning portion of the draft.
> 5.       Formatting will be standardized later.
> As you have not specified the method that you would like to follow to consolidate edits and revisions, staff suggests that your individual comments and edits be made in the attached document in redline mode (i.e. track changes) and circulated to all.   Once you reach a consensus on which changes should be incorporated in the report, staff will make final revisions to the master document.    We will coordinate this with Brian. 
> Please let me, Charla or Alice know if you are experiencing any difficulties with this file – it is quite large.
> Best regards,
> Larisa B. Gurnick
> Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> larisa.gurnick at icann.org
> 310 383-8995
> <ATRT2 Report 5 Oct v.1.docx>_______________________________________________
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20131009/ce84654a/attachment.html>

More information about the atrt2 mailing list