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

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Mon Dec 23 23:20:21 UTC 2013


Hi,

I tend to think that any metrics that are benchmarked have to be done on 
a basis that make statistical and scientific sense.  Is it necessary to 
say that?  I do not think of the ATRT as the social scientists that can 
make that sense.  We know that metrics need to be collected and that 
those need to be benchmarked and used for increased accountability.  
Again we trust in the Board and the staff to figure out how to do this 
properly, with community consultation, of course.

 From inside our bubble, ICANN finds itself to be unique, yet when 
looked at by the social scientists who study organizations such as this, 
we are not completely unique and there are many bases for comparison and 
thus benchmark.  I would think that using its standard modalities*, the 
Board would be able to gain the information it needed to scope and 
design this project.

And if at the end of a real college try the Board really could not 
fulfill this requirement then ATRT3 can discuss both the failure and 
other ways to get this accountability need fulfilled.

avri

*some of those modalities include: going to a research firm such as OWT, 
putting together a presidential panel by another name, Board sending an 
issue to the appropriate SOAC, crowdsourcing, iterative guessing with 
community feedback.


On 23-Dec-13 17:14, 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20131223/55ee81e1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the atrt2 mailing list