The scope of the RSSAC review, like all of ICANN's organizational review, is based on ICANN's Bylaws, Section 4.4: 'The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization, council or committee has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness and (iii) whether that organization, council or committee is accountable to its constituencies, stakeholder groups, organizations and other stakeholders.'

In coordination with the RSSAC Review Working Party and the ICANN Board's Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC), the scope for the second RSSAC review was set as follows:

 An assessment of the implementation state of RSSAC’s prior review.

This includes a status report of the implementations approved by the ICANN Board from the first RSSAC Review, and an assessment of the effectiveness of these implementations.

 An assessment of whether RSSAC has a continuing purpose within the ICANN structure.

Examination of RSSAC’s chartered purpose, to advise the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Internet's Root Server System, and how well it is fulfilled, will help assess the RSSAC’s continuing purpose within the ICANN structure.

An assessment of how effectively RSSAC fulfills its purpose and whether any change in structure or operations is needed to improve effectiveness, in accordance with the ICANN-provided objective and quantifiable criteria.

The assessment of RSSAC structure and operations may include an assessment of RSSAC’s makeup, its current level of participation in, but not limited to, ICANN’s specific review team, and cross-community efforts, the RSSAC’s representation and effectiveness within ICANN, the effectiveness of its communications (both internal and external towards ICANN and other SO/ACs), and the alignment of its charter with ICANN’s mission. Other points to examine include RSSAC’s decision-making methodology, transparency, processes, procedures, and competencies.

An assessment of the extent to which RSSAC as a whole is accountable to the wider ICANN community, its organizations, committees, constituencies, and stakeholder groups to make effective selections.

Determine if the RSSAC is sufficiently accountable regarding the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Internet's Root Server System, according to its chartered mandate.

 

  Suggested Questions to be addressed– Non-exhaustive

 A.    Fulfilment of mission, adherence to policies and procedures, and organizational support

  • Has RSSAC considered its current level of participation and effectiveness within ICANN, and potential for improvements?
  • What developments can RSSAC bring about to enhance communication and understanding of its purpose within ICANN?
  • How do RSSAC’s operations enhance ICANN’s mission?
  • Are the decision-making procedures of RSSAC consistent over the years – if not, why is flexibility important and which procedures (if any) should remain constant?
  • Other elements to assess:
    • Appropriate procedures, competencies and support in place
    • Participation and representation of RSSAC within ICANN
    • Continuous development
    • Alignment with ICANN’s mission (as per Bylaws)

 B.     Accountability and transparency

  • How can RSSAC’s processes be improved, including but not limited to transparency and accountability?
  • Determine if RSSAC has clearly defined its stakeholders with respect to ICANN, and if it is accountable to them.

 C.     RSSAC composition, membership processes, and participation

  • Is any change in structure or operations desirable to improve RSSAC’s effectiveness?
    • RSSAC Caucus
    • Liaison representation
    • Is RSSAC operating optimally within ICANN based on the needs of the ICANN community?
    • Does the RSSAC Caucus enhance the work of RSSAC? If so, how? If not, how could it be improved?
    • Are RSSAC operations performed at a standard that is consistent throughout the Committee?
    • Considering the nature of RSSAC’s mission and the scope of its work, does representation in the current RSSAC structure appropriately match ICANN’s core value of diversity, as stated in Article 3.1 of the Bylaws?
    • Should there be a limit to the number of terms an RSSAC member may serve?

 D.    Communication

  • Do RSSAC communications regarding the operation, administration, security, and integrity of the Internet’s root server system satisfy the needs of the ICANN Board, and the larger ICANN community?
  • Are RSSAC’s communications and its community channels – both among its members about its internal processes, and among the ICANN community about its role and function – adequate to assure understanding and legitimacy of its action? If not, how can it be improved?
  • Does RSSAC invite/permit/allow stakeholder communications on topics of mutual import to the root server system and ICANN?
  • Is RSSAC operating in such a way that interested parties may easily locate and retrieve details of its standards, procedures, and safeguards?
  • Does RSSAC have the necessary resources, knowledge, and processes in place to effectively engage with the ICANN Board and ICANN community?

 E.     Governance and management, effectiveness of execution

  • Does the ICANN Board provide timely responses regarding new RSSAC appointees?
  • Should the process for defining prospective RSSAC Caucus candidates be modified?

 F.     Evaluation and measurement of outcomes

  • Are RSSAC processes and membership adequate to properly advise ICANN regarding the root server system?

 G.    Effectiveness of implementation of prior review recommendations

  • Have implementation steps been completed, or initiated, from the prior review? If not, why not?
  • Has implementation been completed to a degree that allows/permits effectiveness assessment? If so, have the implemented recommendations from previous review efforts led to the desired improvements?

 

  • No labels