[atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Dec 19 01:34:49 UTC 2013
Olivier, if I understand your message correctly,
you are saying that you do not support the
concept of us prioritizing the recommendations (a
position that I am considering taking myself). In
such a case, shouldn't you submit answers, specifically saying NO to each?
At 18/12/2013 07:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of
>these recommendations. This is purely an ICANN
>thing to prioritise things which are all
>important, for the sole purpose of demoting the
>importance of some of the recommendations
>because let's face it, that's exactly what we are doing.
>There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is
>purporting to be a world class organisation...
>and it needs to have a committee help it
>throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented?
>For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle poll.
>On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
>>Dear ATRT2 Members,
>>As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December,
>>please indicate which recommendations you would
>>consider to be priority recommendations by
>>voting in the Doodle Poll
>>This Doodle Poll will close by 23:59 UTC on 18
>>December. Depending on the results of this
>>Poll, further discussion and consideration will
>>be given, via email, to the possibility of
>>including prioritization guidance in the Final Report.
>>Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:
>>#1 The Board should develop objective
>>measures for determining the quality of ICANN
>>Board members and the success of Board
>>improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over time.
>>#2 The Board should develop metrics to
>>measure the effectiveness of the Boards
>>functioning and improvement efforts, and
>>publish the materials used for training to gauge levels of improvement.
>>#3 The Board should conduct
>>qualitative/quantitative studies to determine
>>how the qualifications of Board candidate pools
>>change over time , and regularly assess
>>Directors compensation levels against prevailing standards.
>>#4 The Board should continue supporting
>>cross-community engagement aimed at developing
>>an understanding of the distinction between
>>policy development and policy
>>implementation. Develop complementary
>>mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations
>>and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult
>>with the Board on matters, including, but not
>>limited to policy, implementation and
>>administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions.
>>#5 The Board should review redaction
>>standards for Board documents, Document
>>Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any
>>other ICANN documents to create a single
>>published redaction policy. Institute a process
>>to regularly evaluate redacted material to
>>determine if redactions are still required and
>>if not, ensure that redactions are removed.
>>#6 GAC-related recommendation
>>#7 The Board should explore mechanisms
>>to improve public comment through adjusted time
>>allotments, forward planning regarding the
>>number of consultations given anticipated
>>growth in participation, and new tools that
>>facilitate participation. The Board also
>>should establish a process under the Public
>>Comment Process where those who commented or
>>replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply
>>Comment period(s) can request changes to the
>>synthesis reports in cases where they believe
>>the Staff incorrectly summarized their comment(s).
>>#8 To support public participation, the
>>Board should review capacity of the language
>>services department versus the Community need
>>for the service using Key Performance
>>Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments
>>such as improving translation quality and
>>timeliness and interpretation quality. ICANN
>>should implement continuous improvement of
>>translation and interpretation services
>>including benchmarking of procedures used by
>>international organizations such as the United Nations.
>>#9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes
>>#10 The Board should improve the
>>effectiveness of cross-community deliberations
>>#11 Effectiveness of the Review Process
>>#12 Financial Accountability and Transparency
>>Larisa B. Gurnick
>>Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews
>>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>><mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>larisa.gurnick at icann.org
>>atrt2 mailing list
>><mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>atrt2 at icann.org
>Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>atrt2 mailing list
>atrt2 at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the atrt2