[atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Mon Dec 23 23:24:07 UTC 2013


Hello all,

I must say likewise, I am also somehow confused by: "suitable for a
non-profit organization".
There are countless different types of non-profit organizations with
varying budgets and on the matter of budget, ICANN is rather special in
that it is supporting a global bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy
development process... possibly the only one of its kind in existence
(dare I say, in the universe?). Surely that complicates matters?

Kind regards,

Olivier


On 23/12/2013 23:14, Conroy, Stephen (Private) wrote:
> Hi, my concern is the words will ultimately prove unworkable and be
> unable to be implemented.
>
> Can someone nominate a ' suitable not for profit '
>
> What are the standards of the other organisation ?
>
> Stephen
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 23 Dec 2013, at 8:40 pm, "Lise Fuhr" <lise.fuhr at difo.dk
> <mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>>  
>>
>> The exact current text was agreed by the team at a conference call
>> earlier this month. The last part of paragraph 12.3 is a result of
>> comments from the last round of public comments.
>>
>> There are no preconceived agendas -- and deviations go both ways. So
>> I don't think we go too far regarding intent.
>>
>> Furthermore I am not sure I understand your comment about
>> benchmarking not being the only item to consider when trying to
>> attract staff.
>>
>> I find that the paragraph is an important part of being accountable
>> and ensuring that ICANN is accountable.  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Lise
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Fra:*Conroy, Stephen (Private) [mailto:Stephen.Conroy at aph.gov.au]
>> *Sendt:* 23. december 2013 04:54
>> *Til:* Larisa B. Gurnick
>> *Cc:* Lise Fuhr; Brian Cute; Sabra Chartrand (Chartrand at att.net
>> <mailto:Chartrand at att.net>); ATRT2
>> *Emne:* Re: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review
>>
>>  
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Could I indicate I do not support Lise current paragraph 12.3
>>
>> It is far too restrictive in its intent
>>
>> Benchmarking is important but should not be the only item to consider
>> when trying to attract staff
>>
>>  
>>
>> The ATRT must  not simply push preconceived agendas
>>
>>  
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On 23 Dec 2013, at 10:42 am, "Larisa B. Gurnick"
>> <larisa.gurnick at icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Lise,
>>
>>     Confirmed.  The following wording is currently included in the
>>     report, in the Executive Summary as well as the body of the report.
>>
>>      
>>
>>     12.3  Every three years the Board should conduct a benchmark
>>     study on relevant parameters, (e.g. size of organization, levels
>>     of staff compensation and benefits, cost of living adjustments,
>>     etc.) suitable for a non-profit organization.  If the result of
>>     the benchmark is that ICANN as an organization is not in line
>>     with the standards of comparable organizations, the Board should
>>     consider aligning the deviation. In cases where the Board chooses
>>     not to align, this has to be reasoned in the Board decision and
>>     published to the Internet community.
>>
>>      
>>
>>     12.4  In order to improve accountability and transparency 
>>     ICANN's Board should base the yearly budgets on a multi-annual
>>     strategic plan and corresponding financial framework [covering
>>     e.g. a three-year period] This rolling plan and framework should
>>     reflect the planned activities and the corresponding expenses in
>>     that multi-annual period. This should include specified budgets
>>     for the ACs and SOs. ICANN's [yearly] financial reporting shall
>>     ensure that it is possible to track ICANN's activities and the
>>     related expenses with particular focus on the implementation of
>>     the [yearly] budget. The financial report shall be subject to
>>     public consultation.
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Larisa
>>
>>      
>>
>>     *From:*Lise Fuhr [mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk]
>>     *Sent:* Sunday, December 22, 2013 11:03 AM
>>     *To:* 'Brian Cute'
>>     *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; 'ATRT2'
>>     *Subject:* SV: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Hi Brian,
>>
>>      
>>
>>     I would like to keep the previous edition of 12.4 and I hope that
>>     12.3 still reads:
>>
>>      
>>
>>     12.3   Every three years the Board should conduct a benchmark
>>     study on relevant parameters, (e.g. size of organization, levels
>>     of staff compensation and benefits, cost of living adjustments,
>>     etc.) suitable for a non-profit organization.  If the result of
>>     the benchmark is that ICANN as an organization is not in line
>>     with the standards of comparable organizations, the Board should
>>     consider aligning the deviation. In cases where the Board chooses
>>     not to align, this has to be reasoned in the Board decision and
>>     published to the Internet community.
>>
>>     Best regards and have a happy holiday,
>>     Lise
>>
>>      
>>
>>     *Fra:*Brian Cute [mailto:brianacute at gmail.com]
>>     *Sendt:* 22. december 2013 18:24
>>     *Til:* Lise Fuhr
>>     *Cc:* Larisa B. Gurnick; ATRT2
>>     *Emne:* Re: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Lise,
>>
>>      
>>
>>     I have added footnotes with quotes from public comments to the
>>     report as well as a few edits.  I intended those edits to add
>>     support to the recommendations.  If you are uncomfortable with
>>     the impact on the recommendations you drafted, by all means fell
>>     free to change th to reflect the intent of your draft.
>>
>>      
>>
>>     Beat,
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>>
>>     Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>     On Dec 20, 2013, at 3:31 PM, "Lise Fuhr" <lise.fuhr at difo.dk
>>     <mailto:lise.fuhr at difo.dk>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Larisa,
>>
>>          
>>
>>         I have a few remarks.
>>
>>          
>>
>>         I am not happy with the changes Sabra made on page 12 to
>>         recommendation 12.4. I think the new wording changes the
>>         recommendation too much. I furthermore don't understand why
>>         the review team suddenly is a part of the recommendation. The
>>         changes are not in the same recommendation on page 81. I
>>         prefer the "original" version on page 81.
>>
>>          
>>
>>         At page 79 there is a comment from [s36] about "whose
>>         comments is this?"
>>
>>          
>>
>>         The section referred to is a part of the section above and is
>>         a part of the RySG comments to recommendation 12.4.
>>
>>          
>>
>>         I hope this is understandable.
>>
>>         Have a nice weekend -- and a Merry Christmas/holidays
>>
>>          
>>
>>         Best,
>>
>>         Lise
>>
>>          
>>
>>         *Fra:*atrt2-bounces at icann.org
>>         <mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org>
>>         [mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org] *På vegne af *Larisa B. Gurnick
>>         *Sendt:* 20. december 2013 08:30
>>         *Til:* ATRT2 (atrt2 at icann.org <mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>)
>>         *Emne:* [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review
>>
>>          
>>
>>         Dear Review Team members,
>>
>>          
>>
>>         Attached are documents comprising ATRT2 Final Report -- Draft
>>         #2*.  _Please review these documents and provide staff with
>>         your final edits by 23 UTC on Friday, 20 December_*_._
>>
>>         Staff will circulate ATRT2 Final Report -- Draft #3 on Monday
>>         23 December.
>>
>>          
>>
>>         Appendix B has not changed since the Draft Report.  Appendix
>>         C reflects all the submitted changes.  Appendix D is new. 
>>
>>          
>>
>>         Staff made every effort to reflect your intended changes
>>         consistently and accurately, and the quality control effort
>>         is still continuing.  However, due to the volume of changes,
>>         please take care to check your portions of the document to
>>         ensure accuracy.  Formatting and table of contents will be
>>         updated in the next draft.
>>
>>          
>>
>>         As a reminder, ICANN will be closed for the holidays from
>>         noon on 24 December through 1 January, and the editor that
>>         has been engaged to assist with the Final Report will not be
>>         available after 23 December. 
>>
>>         Staff will be available to assist with any last minute edits
>>         upon return on 2 January.  Staff will submit the final report
>>         for translation  and coordinate the posting on the web site
>>         as soon as ATRT2 confirms the Final Report documents after
>>         the holidays.
>>
>>          
>>
>>         Best regards,
>>
>>          
>>
>>         */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
>>
>>          
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         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

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20131224/71a1fd99/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the atrt2 mailing list