[atrt2] FW: Prioritization Doodle Poll

[Larisa B. Gurnick]

Dear Review Team members,

At your request during yesterday's ATRT2 call, the Doodle Poll to prioritize recommendations has been completed.  Five ATRT2 members responded to the poll.
Below is the tally summarizing the  number of responders indicating that a given recommendation should be prioritized.
The anonymized  Doodle Poll snapshot provides information about how the five individuals voted.
Please refer to the email below for the summary of recommendations.

#1 - 2
#2 - 1
#3 - 1
#4 - 1
#5 - 2
#6 - 4
#7 - 2
#8 - 3
#9 - 2
#10 - 4
#11 - 2
#12 - 4

[cid:image001.png at 01CEFC0E.79B85BB0]
Best regards,

Larisa


From: atrt2-bounces at icann.org<mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:atrt2-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Larisa B. Gurnick
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:49 PM
To: ATRT2 (atrt2 at icann.org<mailto:atrt2 at icann.org>)
Subject: [atrt2] Prioritization Doodle Poll

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20131218/ce2ecc2a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8695 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20131218/ce2ecc2a/image001-0001.png>