[atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review
Lise Fuhr
lise.fuhr at difo.dk
Sat Dec 28 08:24:54 UTC 2013
Dear all,
The intention of recommendation 12.3. is that benchmarking can be a part of
showing that ICANN is accountable. The intention is not to restrict ICANN in
any way.
By not being too specific in precisely how to compare/benchmark the aim is
to give ICANN a possibility to implement the recommendation in a way that is
manageable for the organization.
The intention is important ICANN might not be in line with other
not-for-profit organizations in certain areas but if there is a good reason
for this - that is fine. But if not benchmarked and reasoned for the
differences there is a risk that the global internet society will not find
ICANN accountable. And if the reasoning is not published there a no
possibility of being a part of the conversation about the accountability of
ICANN.
Benchmarking is not an absolute measure so when ICANN is to benchmark they
can choose which other not-for-profit (and possibly also profit
organizations) they benchmark towards. They important part is the reasoning
of why they have chosen the organizations.
Furthermore when benchmarking with other organizations you have a range of
lower, median and top percentile that ICANN as an organization can choose
which one they want to be comparing with. Again the important part is the
reasoning of the choice because this is when ICANN is showing their
accountability.
Best regards,
Jørgen and Lise
Fra: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve at shinkuro.com]
Sendt: 23. december 2013 23:19
Til: Conroy, Stephen (Private)
Cc: Steve Crocker; Lise Fuhr; ATRT2; Sabra Chartrand
Emne: Re: [atrt2] ATRT2 Final Report - Draft#2 For Your Review
Stephen, Lise, et al,
I am following this only lightly. I will ultimately have to dive deeply
into this, and I'll be asking the same questions Stephen is asking.
Anything you can do to make it clearer how to implement the recommendation
will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Steve
On Dec 23, 2013, at 5:14 PM, "Conroy, Stephen (Private)"
<Stephen.Conroy at aph.gov.au> 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> 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 dont
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); 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>
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 ICANNs 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. ICANNs [yearly] financial reporting
shall ensure that it is possible to track ICANNs 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> 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 dont 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] På vegne af
Larisa B. Gurnick
Sendt: 20. december 2013 08:30
Til: ATRT2 (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
310 383-8995
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
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
_______________________________________________
atrt2 mailing list
<mailto:atrt2 at icann.org> atrt2 at icann.org
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/attachments/20131228/bfff74c6/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the atrt2
mailing list