<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Dear Fiona,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Staff has been reviewing the proposed observations and recommendations considered by the ATRT 2 and would like to offer several clarifications. Additionally, it would be very helpful to get further clarification from the Review Team on several points raised. As you are the ATRT 2 member assigned to complete the analysis and the documentation on various items, staff would appreciate your consideration of the information summarized here and your response of clarification.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='color:black'>Inventory Item #30 - Make improvements to the Review processes: Appointment of Review Teams</span></u></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>Draft recommendation:</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>(1) It should be ensured that Review Teams are appointed in due course allowing them to run their work [within] the 1 year process that the review is supposed to take place regardless of the time when the team is established.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>Staff Clarification:</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) does not require that the reviews be completed within one year. While timely completion of the reviews impacts the effectiveness of the 3-year cycle, ATRT 2 may wish to address the 3-year cycle mandated by the AoC.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='color:black'>Inventory Item #31 - Make improvements to the Review processes: Getting the Review Team started with a complete implementation report</span></u></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>Draft Recommendation: </span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>(2) ICANN should prepare a complete implementation report to be ready by Review kick-off. This report should be submitted for public consultation. Benchmarks and metrics must be incorporated into this reporting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'> </span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>Staff Clarification and Request for Additional Information:</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Staff prepares regular and frequent implementation reports to the Board and community. <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability">Annual report</a> was provided to the Board and community. Additionally, staff has provided <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/ATRT2/Information+provided+by+ICANN+Staff">several updates</a> to the Review Team during the course of the Review, in varied forms. Given the wide array of opinions within the Review Team regarding format and substance of staff reports on implementation, staff would find guidance from the Review Team very useful. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='color:black'>Inventory Item #33 - Make improvements to the Review processes: Incorporation of review teams input into ICANN strategic plan and Institutionalization of progress</span></u></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>Draft Recommendation: </span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>(4) ICANN should ensure that the ongoing work of the AOC reviews, including implementation, is fed into the work of other ICANN strategic activities.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>(6) ICANN should ensure strict co-ordination of the various review processes so as to have all reviews done before next ATRT reviews with proper linkage of issues within the AOC and consider the function of a technical facilitator whose mandate is to co-ordinate the reviews.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'>Staff Clarification and Request for Additional Information:</span></i><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>(4) ICANN's AoC commitments are incorporated into its strategic and operating plans, and improvements related to AoC reviews are integrated into ICANN's standard operating procedures and programs. Please see current <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic/strategic-plan-2012-2015-18may12-en.pdf">strategic</a> and <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/adopted-opplan-budget-fy14-22aug13-en.pdf">operating</a> plans and <a href="http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37035">Fadi's update via presentation in Beijing</a>. As the Board, staff and other organizations implement the recommendations of the review teams, ICANN follows a continuous improvement model, integrating the spirit of the recommendations into ICANN’s operations and strategic initiatives, as appropriate. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>(6) ICANN uses various methods to ensure review coordination, and already has staff whose mandate is to coordinate reviews. AoC review teams are independent and make their own time lines, and AoC language specifies frequency of the reviews. The Board and staff do not have control over the timing of the reviews such that they are completed with ample implementation time, prior to the next Accountability and Transparency Review. In order to address this concern, AoC mandate would need to be changed. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Staff would appreciate a clarification of the role of the proposed “technical facilitator”, including what the objective of this individual would be and who would direct and oversee his/her work. As mentioned above, ICANN already has staff whose mandate is to coordinate reviews.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Staff appreciates the significant work effort that you and the Review Team have committed to making ongoing improvements in ICANN’s accountability and transparency.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i>Larisa B. Gurnick<o:p></o:p></i></b></p><p class=MsoNormal>Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.5pt;color:black'>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org">larisa.gurnick@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>310 383-8995<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>