[atrt2] Preliminary Staff Assessment/Response to ATRT2 Draft Recommendations
Demi Getschko
demi at nic.br
Mon Dec 9 19:38:05 UTC 2013
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 at icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick at 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 at icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
>> 310 383-8995
>> *From:*atrt2-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org>[mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:bounces at icann.org>]*On Behalf Of*Denise Michel
>> *Sent:*Sunday, December 08, 2013 12:00 PM
>> *To:*Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>> *Cc:*atrt2 at icann.org <mailto:atrt2 at 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 at icann.org <mailto:denise.michel at icann.org>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at 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 at icann.org <mailto:denise.michel at 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 at icann.org <mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> atrt2 mailing list
>> atrt2 at icann.org <mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>> --
>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> atrt2 mailing list
>> atrt2 at icann.org <mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> atrt2 mailing list
>> atrt2 at icann.org <mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
More information about the atrt2
mailing list