[atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll
Demi Getschko
demi at nic.br
Thu Dec 19 16:19:03 UTC 2013
Hi!
Same as Avri
demi
On 12/19/2013 02:16 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tend to see us offering them 12 recommendations that are all ASAP,
> with progress on everything before the ATRT report for 2014. It is up
> to the Board with advice from the staff to determine how soon is
> really possible and create a schedule that gets everything done. This
> schedule should be public and subject to community comment, and at the
> very least will be covered in the yearly ATRT2 report. One of the
> things we need to count on is that this process has a robust feedback
> mechanism.
>
> I don't however seeing the staff as the control point in this. The
> report is to the Board and it is up to them, with whatever advice they
> may decide they need, to give the appropriate marching orders on the
> implementations. The community then gets to evaluate the
> implementation as it is going on to make sure that the right things
> are being done.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 19-Dec-13 10:50, David Conrad wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I agree with Xinsheng: the issue isn't really whether or not we believe
>> some items are more important than others (or whether some
>> recommendations are being demoted), it's whether or not ATRT2 has input
>> to provide to ICANN staff on the order of implementation. Pragmatically
>> speaking, it is unlikely that ICANN staff will be able to implement all
>> recommendations in parallel, so there will be some ordering of
>> implementation regardless of whether we choose to provide input or not.
>>
>> If we do not provide input, then ICANN staff will make the decisions on
>> the order of implementation based on their view of criticality and
>> resource availability. This is, of course, perfectly reasonable.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:40 AM, zhang xinsheng <zhangxinsheng at miit.gov.cn
>> <mailto:zhangxinsheng at miit.gov.cn>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Olivier,
>>>
>>> I am kind of confused about the point. For all of these
>>> recommendations, I think that the importance of them and the effort to
>>> prioritize them are two things. Even if the team thinks the 12
>>> recommendations are all important, in terms of operation, should we
>>> tell ICANN to implement all 12 recommendations at the same time? I do
>>> not know whether my knowledge regarding prioritization methodology is
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> The team can decide not to do this. But ICANN has to face it in the
>>> process of implementation. Should the team make some suggestions to
>>> ICANN in this aspect?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Xinsheng
>>>
>>> *发件人:*atrt2-bounces at icann.org <mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org>
>>> [mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org] *代表 *Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>>> *发送时间:*2013年12月19日9:47
>>> *收件人:*atrt2 at icann.org <mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>
>>> *主题:*Re: [atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll
>>>
>>> Thank you for your explanation, Denise. Yes, I had dropped from the
>>> last call when this was discussed (darn) - apologies for the
>>> misunderstanding.
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Olivier
>>>
>>> On 19/12/2013 02:26, Denise Michel wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Olivier,
>>>
>>> For the sake of clarity (and you may have gotten dropped from the
>>> last call when this was discussed?) -- the Team decided to
>>> consider prioritizing and asked staff to send this poll. This came
>>> out of a request from Zhang Xinsheng to prioritize the
>>> recommendations.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Denise
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>>> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Larisa,
>>>
>>> I am sorry but I will not prioritise any of these recommendations.
>>> This is purely an ICANN thing to prioritise things which are all
>>> important, for the sole purpose of demoting the importance of some
>>> of the recommendations because let's face it, that's exactly what
>>> we are doing.
>>> There are 12 recommendations; ICANN is purporting to be a world
>>> class organisation... and it needs to have a committee help it
>>> throttle the rate at which these recommendations are implemented?
>>> For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the
>>> doodle poll.
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Olivier
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear ATRT2 Members,
>>>
>>> As discussed on the ATRT2 call on 17 December, please indicate
>>> which recommendations you would consider to be “priority”
>>> recommendations by voting in the Doodle Poll
>>> _http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u. *This Doodle Poll will
>>> close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December.*_ Depending on the results
>>> of this Poll, further discussion and consideration will be
>>> given, via email, to the possibility of including
>>> prioritization guidance in the Final Report.
>>>
>>> Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:
>>>
>>> #1 The Board should develop objective measures for
>>> determining the quality of ICANN Board members and the success
>>> of Board improvement efforts, and analyze those findings over
>>> time.
>>>
>>> #2 The Board should develop metrics to measure the
>>> effectiveness of the Board’s functioning and improvement
>>> efforts, and publish the materials used for training to gauge
>>> levels of improvement.
>>>
>>> #3 The Board should conduct qualitative/quantitative studies
>>> to determine how the qualifications of Board candidate pools
>>> change over time , and regularly assess Director’s
>>> compensation levels against prevailing standards.
>>>
>>> #4 The Board should continue supporting cross-community
>>> engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the
>>> distinction between policy development and policy
>>> implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the
>>> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can
>>> consult with the Board on matters, including, but not limited
>>> to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which
>>> the Board makes decisions.
>>>
>>> #5 The Board should review redaction standards for Board
>>> documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and
>>> any other ICANN documents to create a single published
>>> redaction policy. Institute a process to regularly evaluate
>>> redacted material to determine if redactions are still
>>> required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed.
>>>
>>> #6 GAC-related recommendation
>>>
>>> #7 The Board should explore mechanisms to improve public
>>> comment through adjusted time allotments, forward planning
>>> regarding the number of consultations given anticipated growth
>>> in participation, and new tools that facilitate
>>> participation. The Board also should establish a process
>>> under the Public Comment Process where those who commented or
>>> replied during the Public Comment and/or Reply Comment
>>> period(s) can request changes to the synthesis reports in
>>> cases where they believe the Staff incorrectly summarized
>>> their comment(s).
>>>
>>> #8 To support public participation, the Board should review
>>> capacity of the language services department versus the
>>> Community need for the service using Key Performance
>>> Indicators (KPIs) and make relevant adjustments such as
>>> improving translation quality and timeliness and
>>> interpretation quality. ICANN should implement continuous
>>> improvement of translation and interpretation services
>>> including benchmarking of procedures used by international
>>> organizations such as the United Nations.
>>>
>>> #9 Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals
>>> processes
>>>
>>> #10 The Board should improve the effectiveness of
>>> cross-community deliberations
>>>
>>> #11 Effectiveness of the Review Process
>>>
>>> #12 Financial Accountability and Transparency
>>>
>>> */Larisa B. Gurnick/*
>>>
>>> Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews
>>>
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>
>>> larisa.gurnick at icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>
>>>
>>> 310 383-8995 <tel:310%20383-8995>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>> 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