Policy Comments & Advice
At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments
Notes captured during the At-Large Review Working Party teleconference on 23 Nov 2015.
Independent Examiner Criteria:
Also it was told that the selection criteria of the Independent Examiner should be established in the Bylaw
The work of the CCWG-Accountability may have an impact on how Reviews are conducted in the future and how ICANN Bylaws address Reviews. Currently, we are operating under Article IV, Section 4 of the existing Bylaws which states, in part:
“The Board shall cause a periodic review of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review. 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 has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness.”
Thank you ... If I do not misunderstand this means is already provided for in that Article IV Section 4 of the Statute, the Board makes a periodic review of the functioning and operation of the Independent Examiner. This would lead to the Board or the Board's designee, set in writing a mechanism for appointing the Independent Examiner, his faculties, if it is an individual or several or can be an organization, forms of action and responsibilities . Accountability would be another stage to require the independent reviewer. The idea is that it should be regulated and do it in writing, so that there was a clear and unique procedure, with certain steps that could be concido, to ensure the independence and effectiveness of the work of the Independent Examiner. I do not know if it would be in the Statutes or in which document correspond. It could be in a document developed in this article for this special case.
dear all. What I see, after the transition, is to have more transparency. this not means Baord will not approve the selection of an independent organization. what may work in favor of more transparency is to add a member of the AC / SO to be reviewed into the group who will select the independent organization.
I think it's possible that adding a person is enough Vanda. I do not know the organization as much as you
hi all. i would like to add some issues here:
a) about diversity - the generic approach about the knowledge we are expecting needs to be more specific: we want an organization that may be itself an NGO, with people that had lived or worked in different places to really understand diversity. Just a historical of haven clients around the world doesn't mean they really understand what diversity means.
b) understanding of ICANN - this is important but the knowledge related to the market itself, or intelectual property for instance is not relevant for ALAC analysis, in my opinion. Would be good to have an organization that have more experience in participation as simple attendant with a broader view of the community.
I think that the criterion of Understanding ICANN is a key aspect of the review by "an entity or independent entities" (Article IV, Section 4 of the Existing Bylaws). If this review, in fact, should be periodically is the opportunity to assess the contributions of each structure to the processes of decision-making and if you really have a direct impact on the construction of standares or just comment and legitimize constuidas standards in other areas .I think there are many factors that promote the voluntary participation or inactivity of the AC / SO within ICANN.
Maybe they could play the role of Independent Examiner, several people selected in different areas, a kind of multidisciplinary team, comprising for example a sociologist. These people should have a broad knowledge of ALs and ICANN, and the idiosyncrasies and languages, but also from different perspectives and with different levels. Since these differences and work together should arise a more complete sense of reality. From this vision and overall analysis, the team should identify existing problems, their causes and ways of solution. What is the motivation of the participants in the ALs and in the groups, and how improve it, is one of issue to study. I think that capacity building is one of them, but not only. All in order to achieve an improvement in system performance as a whole. I do not know if this can be very complex. But the object of analysis is itself complex.
let's remember that ALSs have so different approaches to conduct their business in different regions, hence, focus will need to be set on general aspects of Internet and each ALSs will find a way to fit .
we also need to remember that there are INDIVIDUALS acting as ALSs, and we need to have some kind of approach to them too.