<html>
<body>
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?<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 18/12/2013 07:02 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear Larisa,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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?<br>
For this reason, and I apologise for this, I shall not fill the doodle
poll. <br>
Kind regards,<br><br>
Olivier<br><br>
<br>
On 18/12/2013 05:48, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear ATRT2 Members,<br>
<br>
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
<a href="http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u"><u>
http://doodle.com/yxidhmrupcbfmb4u</a>. <b>This Doodle Poll will
close by 23:59 UTC on 18 December.</u></b> 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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Here is a recap of the recommendations for ease of reference:<br>
<br>
#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.<br>
<br>
#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.<br>
<br>
#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.<br>
<br>
#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.<br>
<br>
#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. <br>
<br>
#6 GAC-related
recommendation<br>
<br>
#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). <br>
<br>
#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.<br>
<br>
#9 Consideration of
decision-making inputs and appeals processes<br>
<br>
#10 The Board should improve the
effectiveness of cross-community deliberations<br>
<br>
#11 Effectiveness of the Review
Process<br>
<br>
#12 Financial Accountability and
Transparency<br>
<br>
<br>
<b><i>Larisa B. Gurnick<br>
</i></b>Consultant/Senior Director, Organizational Reviews<br>
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)<br>
<a href="mailto:larisa.gurnick@icann.org">larisa.gurnick@icann.org</a><br>
310 383-8995<br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
<a href="mailto:atrt2@icann.org">atrt2@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2</a>
</pre></blockquote><br><br>
<pre>--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
<a href="http://www.gih.com/ocl.html">http://www.gih.com/ocl.html</a>
</pre><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
atrt2 mailing list<br>
atrt2@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2</a></blockquote></body>
</html>