PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION?
Organizational and Specific Reviews are an important element of ICANN’s multistakeholder model and continuous improvement. Improvements resulting from these reviews speak to ICANN’s accountability and transparency, and its ability to evolve as an institution that continuously improves, promoting the global public interest, with sensitivity to the changing environment as it relates to ICANN’s mission.
Leading into the next five-year strategic planning cycle, the Board's priority is to work with the community to reimagine how this important means of accountability can be improved to serve ICANN in the future. The Board believes that
1) it is important to focus on enhancing the reviews before the process can effectively be streamlined. Specifically, the focus should be on the resourcing and prioritization of community recommendations. Moreover, developing recommendations that propose improvements and implementing such recommendations effectively is required for the reviews to serve their intended purpose. With the wide range and scope of community-related review recommendations, there have been discussions within ICANN (community, Board and the ICANN organization) that have opened up the possibility for collaboratively engaging to make these recommendations more effective.
2) streamlining entails improving both the timing and the cadence of the reviews. The overall goal being to operate more efficiently and effectively, while considering the availability of the community and our resources.
In parallel to the above discussion and as part of its mission, the third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) - which was convened on 20 December 2018 - "may recommend to the Board the termination or amendment of other periodic reviews required by this Section 4.6, and may recommend to the Board the creation of additional periodic reviews" (Bylaws, Section 4.6 (c)(iv)). Follow their work here.
To fulfil its mission, the ATRT3 Review Team agreed during its first face-to-face meeting to carry out its work in four work parties: Board | GAC | Reviews | Community.
The objectives of the Reviews Working Party are as follows:
Assessment of implementation of recommendations
Qualitative and quantitative assessments of effectiveness of previous (Section 4.6), i.e, SSR1, RDS1, ATRT1.
Analyze Issues with ongoing reviews, focusing on common challenges with objectivity, efficiency, effectiveness, measurable impacts. e.g., CCWG-Accountability Workstream 2, CCT-RT, RDS2, SSR2
Qualitative and quantitative assessments of effectiveness of previous, i.e., RSSAC, SSAC, NOMCOM, GNSO, ccNSO, At Large, ASO.
Investigate and potentially propose a systemic review of ICANN, focusing on the impact of current bylaws on ability to achieve mission.
Follow the Reviews Working Party work here.
OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE:
No open discussions/sessions scheduled at the moment.
Your voice is important, we encourage you to let it be heard by participating in the future (if applicable) public comments, webinars and/or engagement sessions.
KEY NEWS AND UPDATES:
ICANN66 | Montréal | Enhancing the Effectiveness of Review Recommendations and Their Implementation
On 4 November 2019, the ICANN Board, during a public session and in presence of review team leaders, shared proposals on how to move forward with related, important streamlining work during or shortly after ICANN66. More information and recording available here.
Early 2020. Principles listed in the draft proposal to be updated based on feedback from community and practical experience from review teams, ICANN Board, and ICANN org. Conduct public consultation on principles for Resourcing and Prioritization of Review Recommendations.
- By ICANN67. Subject to outcome and timing of public consultation, finalization of principles and Board consideration to adopt and include in Operating Standards.
- Post ICANN67. Principles become part of the Operating Standards through the amendment process that includes public comment; once part of the Operating Standards the principles will guide the work of specific reviews.
Resourcing and Prioritization of Community Recommendations: Draft Proposal for Community Discussions