Public Comment CloseStatement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open
Call for
Comments
Close 
Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number

31 July 2018

ADOPTED

13Y, 0N, 0A

30 July 2018

31 July 2018

31 July 2018

03 August 2018

31 July 2018

AL-ALAC-ST-0718-04-01-EN

Hide the information below, please click here 


FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 



FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.

Posted by Alan Greenberg, 30 July 2018


The ALAC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the long term options for carrying out both Specific Reviews and Organizational Reviews.

The discussion of Organizational Reviews and Specific Reviews should be completely separate. They are different in EVERY way that impacts the community. All they have in common is:

  • the word "Review";
  • they cost money;  and
  • they involve staff effort.

Note that the last two bullets are common to virtually everything that ICANN does!  HOW the two types of Reviews operate, what task they are charged with, and the requirement for significant community resources are SO different. Moreover, how well the two processes are working is like night and day.

Organizational Reviews

The next Organizational review is not due to start for a few years and the Board has the discretion to delay. STOP initiating Organizational Reviews until we assess how effective they have been (that is, a review of the past review processes) and develop a methodology to allow them to be cost effective (and that includes volunteer effort) and to be effective. The intent of the Bylaw requirement is to ensure that we be meaningful and effective, not to inflict punishment. The Bylaw requirement of occasional introspection is good. But what we have made it into is not. The current planned concept of dividing the review into two phases, analysis of issues and then recommendations is NOT sufficient.

When we figure out HOW to do such reviews in a meaningful and effective manner, make sure that we restart them to allow them to be scattered over time and not happen in large clusters. Note that part of this will be ensuring that the review is completed in a reasonable amount of time. 3+ years, which is what the At-Large Review has taken to get to the implementation phase,  is NOT reasonable.

Specific Reviews

Change the Bylaws to give the Board some wriggle room with the timing of Specific Reviews going forward.

If we do not take explicit action, the next round of SSR3, RDS3 and ATRT4 will all start at about the same time. Based on when we expect them to start (using the Bylaw 5-year separation) and assessing the priority of them in respect to each other, spread these out to allow more effective use of financial and staff resources not having three running at the same time. To be clear, for the NEXT rounds, we may need more than "wriggle room" to ensure that they are spread out properly. The Bylaw wording must allow for such flexibility.

Lastly, when reporting on the review schedule, the “duration” of the review should be limited to the period of time from when the Review Team first meets (the original meaning of “convene” in the Bylaws), to the time when the final report is delivered.



DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).

Posted by Alan Greenberg


My recommendations:

  • Separate the discussion of Organizational Reviews and Specific Reviews. They are different in EVERY way that impact the community. All they have in common is:
    1. the word "Review";
    2. they cost money; and
    3. they involve staff effort.

But HOW the operate, what they are charged with, and the requirement for significant community resources are SO different, and how well two processes are working is like night and day.

  • The next Organizational review is not due to start for a few years and the Board has the discretion to delay. STOP initiating Organizational Reviews until we assess how effective they have been and develop a methodology to allow them to be cost effective (and that includes volunteer effort) and to be effective. The intent of the Bylaw requirement is to ensure that we be meaningful and effective, not to inflict punishment. The Bylaw requirement of occasional introspection is good. but what we have made it into is not.
  • When we figure out HOW to do such reviews in a meaningful and effective manner, make sure that we restart them to allow them to be scattered over time and not happen in large clusters. Note that part of this will be ensuring that the review is completed in a reasonable amount of time. 3+ years is NOT reasonable.
  • Change the Bylaws to give the Board some wriggle room with the timing of Specific Reviews going forward.
  • If we do not take explicit action, the next round of SSR3, RDS3 and ATRT4 will all start at about the same time. Based on when we expect them to start (using the Bylaw 5-year separation) and assessing the priority of them in respect to each other, spread these out to allow more effective use of financial and staff resources not having three running at the same time. To be clear, for the NEXT rounds (only) we need more than "wriggle room" to ensure that they are spread out properly.

13 Comments

  1. First - the short term reviews.  I think any further work on the existing WHOIS framework is insane.  The RDS WG has suspended its work, pending finalsation of  the 'temporary model' underpinned by the 'accreditation model'.  Until ICANN has worked through its response to the GDPR, with time to evaluate both its acceptability and the practicality of its implementation, it makes no sense to review a policy that is being completely overhauled. On yet another ATRT - could we first have a full evaluation of the outcomes of ATRT2 - what was recommended and what has/has not been implemented - with a bit of time to see if it all works.  In fact, I'd rather have a review specifically aimed at how the post-IANA arrangements are working/will work.

    In the longer term, I'd support - in general terms - all of the recommendations

    • yes, stagger reviews so that there is a limit as to how many can be undertaken at any one time - noting that some reviews may be very quick and not resource intensive
    • yes, time limits please (or at least a justification required for going over time
    • yes, identify and focus on areas that most need review (recognising that there will not necessarily be agreement on this)
    • and yes, at the end of the day, flexibility in case important issues arise
  2. Holly, you have responded to two different Public Comments here. I have reposted your first paragraph in the correct place.

    1. Thanks - I realised that there were two places to comment after I posted the comments

  3. My main concern is with the idea that the Bylaws state that every 5-years a Reviews must be done. My perception is that once Policy is approved and the implemmentation process initaites, it does not seem adequate. Why? It does not make sense to review a policy that has not deliverables in place to measure its' effectiiveness. Threrefore, it seems that an evaluation on the time when a review must be initiated must concern a time frame that seeks a realistic starting point: at least 3 years once a Policy has been implemented and metrics/deliverbles are in place to "really' evaluate its'effectiveness.
  4. My recommendations:

    • Separate the discussion of Organizational Reviews and Specific Reviews. They are different in EVERY way that impact the community. All they have in common is:
      1. the word "Review";
      2. they cost money; and
      3. they involve staff effort.

    But HOW the operate, what they are charged with, and the requirement for significant community resources are SO different, and how well two processes are working is like night and day.

    • The next Organizational review is not due to start for a few years and the Board has the discretion to delay. STOP initiating Organizational Reviews until we assess how effective they have been and develop a methodology to allow them to be cost effective (and that includes volunteer effort) and to be effective. The intent of the Bylaw requirement is to ensure that we be meaningful and effective, not to inflict punishment. The Bylaw requirement of occasional introspection is good. but what we have made it into is not.
    • When we figure out HOW to do such reviews in a meaningful and effective manner, make sure that we restart them to allow them to be scattered over time and not happen in large clusters. Note that part of this will be ensuring that the review is completed in a reasonable amount of time. 3+ years is NOT reasonable.
    • Change the Bylaws to give the Board some wriggle room with the timing of Specific Reviews going forward.
    • If we do not take explicit action, the next round of SSR3, RDS3 and ATRT4 will all start at about the same time. Based on when we expect them to start (using the Bylaw 5-year separation) and assessing the priority of them in respect to each other, spread these out to allow more effective use of financial and staff resources not having three running at the same time. To be clear, for the NEXT rounds (only) we need more than "wriggle room" to ensure that they are spread out properly.
  5. A few ideas

    • New reviews should only be allowed after a period of 1-2 years following the successful completion of the implementation of the previous review recommendations. This gives some time to see how changes impact the system reviewed before suggesting new changes. It is ridiculous to begin reviewing before prior recommendations are implemented or having time to see how they work in practice.
    • ICANN should retain better external reviewers. The present system produces uneven levels of expertise. I would therefore suggest that ICANN retains the likes of McKinsey or Bain for all reviews. As a by product, this will enable standardization and comparison of reviews across the organization.
    1. Based on your 2nd bullet, I presume you are talking about Organizational Reviews, since they are the only ones with external reviewers. Right?

    2. New reviews should only be allowed after a period of 1-2 years following the successful completion of the implementation of the previous review recommendations. This gives some time to see how changes impact the system reviewed before suggesting new changes. It is ridiculous to begin reviewing before prior recommendations are implemented or having time to see how they work in practice.

      Currently the bylaws allow 5 years after the report is delivered to until the next review is initiated. And the Board has the discretion to delay. If the recommendations are reasonable, implementation should easily be possible within the time-line you suggest. The problem has been, for the ALAC in any case, that the recommendations are not reasonable.


      ICANN should retain better external reviewers. The present system produces uneven levels of expertise. I would therefore suggest that ICANN retains the likes of McKinsey or Bain for all reviews. As a by product, this will enablestandardization and comparison of reviews across the organization.

      John, one of the problems has been that the reviewers have insufficient familiarity with ICANN. It is not clear that your solution addresses that. I also note that nothing has prevented such organizations from competing for the last reviews.

      I would content that the problem is not solely with the quality of the reviewers but with how the overall process is carried out and what is asked of the reviewers.

  6. Alan,

    I support the intent of your 30 July draft. Further, I also agree with your reply to John on the importance of selecting reviewers having sufficient familiarity with ICANN (*having raised an eyebrow on some of ITEMS International's recommendations in the 2017 At-Large Community Review), even if some amount of independence is warranted.

    Just 2 addition/query for consideration, as follows:

    RE: Organizational Reviews

    1. STOP initiating Organizational Reviews until we assess how effective they have been (that is, a review of the past review processes, including the reviewers and their mandates) and develop a methodology to allow them to be cost effective (and that includes volunteer effort) and to be constructive.
    2. When you write, "The intent of the Bylaw requirement is to ensure that we be meaningful and effective, not to inflict punishment.", it's not clear who you mean by "we", or should it be "they" instead?
    1. Thanks Justine, I have incorporated most of your comments. I did not include review the "reviewers" and I don't think that would be something that we could do effectively in a public forum.

  7. Alan,

    I feel comfortable with the comment.  I believe that "we" in this context refers to ICANN Org ... "be meaningful and effective, not inflict punishment".

  8. I agree with the draft statement. 

  9. I also feel Specific and Organizational Reviews should discussed separately as Alan suggested in draft.  In my view the idea of "no more than one Specific Review and two Organizational Reviews running concurrently" is a good suggestion. As pointed out in draft explicit action needed to avoid start of three reviews (SSR3, RDS3 and ATRT4) in same time.