<html>
<body>
See embedded.<br><br>
Also, there is a reference at the end of your note to
"implantation". Don't know where it comes from, but presume it
should be implementation.<br><br>
<br>
At 23/12/2013 06:35 PM, Larisa B. Gurnick wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear ATRT2,<br>
Attached is the latest version of the ATRT2 Report, along with separate
documents for Appendices B- E (Appendix A is the ICC report). All changes
have been incorporated and Table of Contents has been updated.
These are the master files and should be used if you plan to make any
further changes to the report prior to submitting it to the Board.
Please copy me, Denise and Alice when you submit your Final Report to the
Board. <br>
<br>
Staff flagged several items (previously included as notes in the
document) for you to consider as you finalize the report please see the
listing below.<br>
<br>
As a reminder, ICANN will be closed for the holidays from noon on 24
December through 1 January. 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.<br>
<br>
Happy Holidays,<br>
Larisa<br>
<br>
<b><u>Items for ATRT2 consideration prior to finalizing the report:<br>
</u></b>1. Recommendation #4 Paul
indicated that the Review Team should develop a footnote explaining
change from prior language, i.e. only mention policy development and
implementation, not administrative matters. Executive Summary
and body of the report.<br>
2. Recommendation #6 Confirm
that the following should be deleted: Increase GAC early
involvement in the various ICANN policy processes (tied to ATRT 1
Recommendation 12). Recommendation was merged and concepts included
in the recommendations related to cross-community development
processes. Executive Summary and body of the
report.</blockquote><br>
I cannot locate that line, so presume it was already deleted. <br><br>
In any case, I can see no reason to keep it. If we really want a link, it
could be worded "Another GAC-related recommendation can be found at
Recommendation 10.2".<br><br>
However, I see no real need for that.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">3.
Report Section 1; Findings of ATRT1: In the course of its
deliberations, ATRT1 found that the Nominating Committee (NomCom) had
failed to implement previous recommendations <a href="??">from,
</a><a name="_msoanchor_1"></a>[S1] <br><br>
<h2><b>4. In several sections of the
report, references to ATRT1 recommendations have been footnoted. This has
not been done consistently throughout the report.
</b></h2><br><br>
<br>
<h2><b>5. Report Section 5; Findings of
ATRT1 - <a href="??">capacity</a><a name="_msoanchor_2"></a>[S2] .
</b></h2><br><br>
6. Report Section Headings Alan
made a change to Report Section 13, which was incorporated. He took
out the parenthetical reference; yet other Report Sections still have it
and earlier, there was an agreement to include these references for
further clarity. ATRT2 should make a decision to address this
consistently.</blockquote><br>
What I removed was factually incorrect - it referred to earlier versions
which were focused on the GNSO PDP.<br><br>
What you have for sections 14 and 15 is:<br><br>
Report Section 14. AoC REVIEW PROCESS EFFECTIVENESS: ATRT2
Recommendation 11 (New Recommendation on Effectiveness of the Review
Process)<br><br>
Report Section 15. FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABIILITY AND TRANSPARENCY:
ATRT2 Recommendation #12 (New Recommendation on Finance Accountability
and Transparency)<br><br>
The parenthetical seems rather redundant to me, but if you want one for
Section 13, it should be:<br><br>
Report Section 13. CROSS-COMMUNITY DELIBERATIONS: ATRT2
Recommendation #10 (New Recommendation on Cross-community
Deliberations)<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
7. P.54 Summary of other relevant
information Staff has previously submitted a correction:
<b>Correction: </b>Page 45 of the Draft Report: Reconsideration
review on 13-3, the Board, through the NGPC, actually accepted
reconsideration of the issue, though the ultimate decision was that the
action should not be overturned. This is different from the Board
denying reconsideration, which is what happened in the other instances
cited.<br><br>
<h2><b>8. Appendix E p. E-4; Metrics and
criteria for measuring progress; last sentence - <a href="??">ATRT2
requested that it be able to interact with One World Trust directly so
that ATRT2 could reflect the need for metrics in its Final Report in a
coordinated way.
</a><a name="_msoanchor_3"></a>[LBG3] </b></h2><br>
<br>
<b> <br>
</b> <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>
<a name="_msocom_1"></a> <a href="#_msoanchor_1">[S1]</a>PD7 asks do
we know what entity made this recommendation? Would need
citations LG<a name="_msocom_1"></a> response: Not sure could be
the structural review mandated by the bylaws.<br>
<br>
<a name="_msocom_2"></a> <a href="#_msoanchor_2">[S2]</a>
<a name="_msocom_2"></a>PD19 says reference explanatory text on why ATRT2
is only focusing on policy development and implantation?<br>
<a name="_msocom_3"></a> <a href="#_msoanchor_3">[LBG3]</a>
<a name="_msocom_3"></a>Staff suggestion: update the comment based on the
draft report that has been shared confidentially with the ATRT2.<br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>