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.
The ALAC appreciated the opportunity to comment on the next steps on Reviews
ATRT3 - Proposed Path Forward: Commence ATRT3 to start its substantive work in January 2019. To achieve this target, the Board would ask for the community to reconfirm their review team nominees and for the SO/AC chairs to appoint the review team by 30 November 2018.
The ALAC supports the proposal.
Specific Reviews - Proposed Path Forward: ATRT3 to consider undertaking a discussion on how to streamline Specific Reviews to make them more effective and impactful. ATRT3 could explore relevant input from: ICANN community (public comments on Long-term options and additional consultations), ICANN organization via observed best practices and opportunities for efficiencies from specific reviews conducted in the past year, and ICANN Board, via observations from OEC.
ATRT3 discussions, guidance and potentially recommendations would inform next steps.
The ALAC considers this a low priority item for ATRT3. Based on recent experience, the reviews have largely worked well. What has not worked as well is the ICANN Org implementation which seems to focus far more on ticking off boxes than on addressing the intent of the recommendations.
Organizational Reviews - Proposed Path Forward: Begin an effort to formulate a shared understanding of the purpose of Organizational Reviews and their expected outcomes - within the ICANN community, Board and ICANN organization. Identify potential options to accomplish the agreed upon purpose and expectations, with an eye toward improved efficiency and effectiveness. The goal would be to achieve a balanced outcome, resulting in an effective process with support from the community, while preserving transparent and consistent means of assessing SO/AC accountability to their stakeholders and a means of implementing meaningful improvements. The Board, through the OEC, would provide guidance and direction on the possible solutions, and community consultation would also take place.
The ALAC supports the proposal but with caution. We need not just change, but effective change. The Organizational Review process has been a HUGELY expensive (both financial and volunteer effort; both the review process proper and their implementations). It is not at all obvious that any benefits have come near to being commensurate with the efforts.
This cannot be a Board and/or ICANN Org effort “with consultation”. There needs to be active community participation in formulating any recommendations.
Specific Reviews Operating Standards - Proposed Path Forward: Rooted in practical experience over the past year with two post-transition-initiated reviews, ICANN organization will incorporate proposals based on significant lessons learned and include operational process improvements implemented within the past year. The next draft Operating Standards will be responsive to community concerns about selection of RT members, scope setting and monitoring progress of review teams with clear definition of escalation procedures, among others.
The ALAC supports this, but it must be done with GREAT CARE.
Institutionalizing things which have only had limited application can lead to unintended results. As an example, the first version of the Operating Standards went into excruciating detail where it was not warranted. It specified that all RTs must have Co-Chairs, because Co-Chairs were in vogue and were successful for the CWG-Stewardship Transition and the CCWG-Accountability. The RDS-WHOIS2-RT and now the reformed SSR2-RT decided that a Chair and Vice-Chairs made more sense.
As a second example, the first version of the Operating Standards specified a very cumbersome (in time and community effort) to define the scope of a review because of the PERCEIVED problem in one recent review. And it is far from clear whether that perception was even accurate.
As a third example (provided by the Chair of the RDS-WHOIS2-RT) the forced DETAILED planning has helped the RDS-WHOIS-Review develop and (roughly) keep to its schedule. But it only worked because the review team leadership was willing to consciously make specific changes even though it had committed to other timelines in its Terms of Reference. Agility, here, as in modern programming, is essential. On the other hand, adoption of report standards and careful adherence to then, has led to a bloated and largely inflated Draft Report.
Operating Standards should take a minimalist approach.
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).
Submitted by Alan Greenberg on 02 October 2018 at 02:00 UTC
The ALAC appreciated the opportunity to comment on the next steps on Reviews
ATRT3 - Proposed Path Forward: Commence ATRT3 to start its substantive work in January 2019. To achieve this target, the Board would ask for the community to reconfirm their review team nominees and for the SO/AC chairs to appoint the review team by 30 November 2018.
The ALAC supports the proposal.
Specific Reviews - Proposed Path Forward: ATRT3 to consider undertaking a discussion on how to streamline Specific Reviews to make them more effective and impactful. ATRT3 could explore relevant input from: ICANN community (public comments on Long-term options and additional consultations), ICANN organization via observed best practices and opportunities for efficiencies from specific reviews conducted in the past year, and ICANN Board, via observations from OEC.
ATRT3 discussions, guidance and potentially recommendations would inform next steps.
The ALAC considers this a low priority item for ATRT3. Based on recent experience, the reviews have largely worked well. What has not worked as well is the ICANN Org implementation which seems to focus far more on ticking off boxes than on addressing the intent of the recommendations.
Organizational Reviews - Proposed Path Forward: Begin an effort to formulate a shared understanding of the purpose of Organizational Reviews and their expected outcomes - within the ICANN community, Board and ICANN organization. Identify potential options to accomplish the agreed upon purpose and expectations, with an eye toward improved efficiency and effectiveness. The goal would be to achieve a balanced outcome, resulting in an effective process with support from the community, while preserving transparent and consistent means of assessing SO/AC accountability to their stakeholders and a means of implementing meaningful improvements. The Board, through the OEC, would provide guidance and direction on the possible solutions, and community consultation would also take place.
The ALAC supports the proposal but with caution. We need not just change, but effective change. The Organizational Review process has been a HUGELY expensive (both financial and volunteer effort; both the review process proper and their implementations). It is not at all obvious that any benefits have come near to being commensurate with the efforts.
This cannot be a Board and/or ICANN Org effort “with consultation”. There needs to be active community participation in formulating any recommendations.
Specific Reviews Operating Standards - Proposed Path Forward: Rooted in practical experience over the past year with two post-transition-initiated reviews, ICANN organization will incorporate proposals based on significant lessons learned and include operational process improvements implemented within the past year. The next draft Operating Standards will be responsive to community concerns about selection of RT members, scope setting and monitoring progress of review teams with clear definition of escalation procedures, among others.
The ALAC supports this, but it must be done with GREAT CARE.
Institutionalizing things which have only had limited application can lead to unintended results. As an example, the first version of the Operating Standards went into excruciating detail where it was not warranted. It specified that all RTs must have Co-Chairs, because Co-Chairs were in vogue and were successful for the CWG-Stewardship Transition and the CCWG-Accountability. The RDS-WHOIS2-RT and now the reformed SSR2-RT decided that a Chair and Vice-Chairs made more sense.
As a second example, the first version of the Operating Standards specified a very cumbersome (in time and community effort) to define the scope of a review because of the PERCEIVED problem in one recent review. And it is far from clear whether that perception was even accurate.
As a third example (provided by the Chair of the RDS-WHOIS2-RT) the forced DETAILED planning has helped the RDS-WHOIS-Review develop and (roughly) keep to its schedule. But it only worked because the review team leadership was willing to consciously make specific changes even though it had committed to other timelines in its Terms of Reference. Agility, here, as in modern programming, is essential. On the other hand, adoption of report standards and careful adherence to then, has led to a bloated and largely inflated Draft Report.
Operating Standards should take a minimalist approach.
9 Comments
Holly Raiche
Do we really need tocomment on this. We have already provided our comments. This is an additional call for comments because so few were received. Adding another comment from ALAC (saying the same thing) won't amount to the additional comments that are being sought.
Alan Greenberg
I think we do.
In my mind, it is not due to the small number of comments, but due to the diversity and wanting to ensure that the staff picks are not accepted without an opportunity to comment on them.
Alan Greenberg
My initial thoughts.
Support.
I would put this at a low priority if at all. Based on my current impression (based on ATRT2 and RDS-WHOIS2) the largest single problem is the ICANN Org implementation of recommendations and not the actual review process.
Support, but with caution. We need not just change, but effective change. This has been a HUGELY expensive (both financial and volunteer effort - both the reviews and their implementations) and it is not at all obvious that any benefits have come near to being commensurate with the efforts.
This may require a group of people working on this with some level of intensity (dare I say a "review team"?).
Support, but with GREAT CARE. Institutionalizing things which have only had limited application is a two-edged sword. For instance, the forced DETAILED planning has helped the RDS-WHOIS-Review develop and (roughly) keep to its schedule. But it only worked because leadership was willing to consciously make specific changes even though we had committed to other timelines in our Terms of Reference. Agility, here, as in modern programming, is essential. On the other hand, adoption of report standards and careful adherence to then, has, in my mind (as the RT Chair) led to a bloated and largely inflated Draft Report.
As another example, the first version of the Operating Standards went into excruciating detail where it was not warranted. It specified that all RTs must have Co-Chairs, because Co-Chairs were in vogue and were successful for the CWG-Stewardship Transition and the CCWG-Accountability. The RDS-WHOIS2-RT and now the reformed SSR2-RT decided that a Chair and Vice-Chairs made more sense.
Holly Raiche
Could we also please say that organisational reviews particularly are deferred if there is already a huge workload on the SO/ACs. Case in point - the EPDP is absorbing massive time of the active participants (to say nothing of all the reading by the alternates). At the least, don't start ATRT3 in January - wait until the outcome of the EPDP. More generally, recognise that both organisational and specific reviews are a big drain on resources - particuarly ALAC which relies on volunteers. So timing more generally - take into account the existing load on SO/AC members, and don't embark on yet more reviews until the last review recommendations have been implemented.
Alan Greenberg
Holly, you start out talking about organizational reviews and as an example mention a Specific review. Ignoring that, I can see not starting the ATRT3 with people directly involved in the EPDP. Are there any?? Why would you not just reallocate those selections if there are any.
We are saying NO organizational reviews until the entire concept is rethought. There is no need to micro-manage the timing of future reviews when we have no idea at all what form they might take.
Holly Raiche
I appreciate that I started talking about organisational reviews and then went to the EPDP - a specific. I absolutely support NO organisational reviews until we work why they are held, what is expected, and how they are implemented. (remembering that ICANN did accept the AoC condition of regular organsational reviews) That said, in this particular case, I cannot see anyone having any more bandwidth for another ATRT while ever the EPDP chews up everyone's time. - thus my specific horror at another ATRT started before the EPDP is completed.
Alan Greenberg
To be clear, the EPDP is a GNSO PDP, not a Specific Review (previously known as AoC Reviews).
We already said we can accept the ATRT3 going forward immediately. At this point, 3 of the 4 people we selected for ATRT3 have said they are prepared to have it proceed now, and if the 4th declines, it will have nothing to do with the EPDP. Based on past history, we will not hear anything from the ATRT3 team until perhaps the June ICANN meeting, and perhaps not by then.
BTW, why did we not have this discussion in the 3 weeks since my original comment was posted?
Holly Raiche
Of course the EPDP is not a review. It's now just one very large hunk of work for everyone involved. And why no discussion earlier. On Sept 10, I did ask why are we commenting. I am still asking. Do we seriously think that, in the midst of the EPDP and the huge amount of work involved in the SubPro issues, there is a lot of bandwidth for anyone to actively participate in another ATRT. If there is constructive work to be done, it should be towards outcomes - the EPDP, the SubPro, or implementing our own Review. As you say, the problem is that the recommendations for change coming out of the ATRTs don't result in change. Yet we will use our time and resources to participate. Back to my original comment weeks ago - when everything on our plate, do we have the bandwidth to participate.
Alan Greenberg
I will correct the statement to say that AT TIMES, this happens. It is not a case of nothing coming out of the reviews - far from it. I wouldn't be spending time running a Specific Review if I felt that way.