Page History

Versions Compared

Key

This line was added.
This line was removed.
Formatting was changed.

Streamlining Reviews

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 it is important to focus on 1) 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. The Board also believes that 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.

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.

Next Steps:

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

The Draft Paper, published alongside the Chairman’s blog, posted on Thursday 31 October 2019, is a component of the wider discussion on streamlining organizational and specific reviews. Read it here.

WIKI SHORTCUTS

IMPORTANT LINKS

Specific Reviews and Organizational Reviews landing page
Operating Standards page

Tip

title	The Short-Term Options

Expand
The short-term options involve the third Accountability and Transparency Review (ATRT3) and the second Registration Directory Service Review (RDS-WHOIS2). The options for ATRT3 range from maintaining status quo, to moving forward with some aspects of the review (such as a focus only on the evaluation of prior review recommendations), to deferring the start of ATRT3 for approximately one year. The options for RDS-WHOIS2 similarly range from keeping the status quo by continuing the review work under way, to limiting the work to the evaluation of prior review recommendations only, to pausing the work. We recognize the extensive work and progress the RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team has accomplished so far and thank the Review Team for their efforts, and encourage the team to participate in this Public Comment. ICANN organization will of course continue our full commitment and support with both RDS-WHOIS2 and ATRT3 as planned. Should the public comment process and input indicate community agreement for another approach, that will then be implemented together with the community. To find the list of the short-term options along with advantages, disadvantages, please click here [PDF, 140 KB]. Please share your public comment on short-term options by 6 July 2018.

Expand

The short-term options involve the third Accountability and Transparency Review (ATRT3) and the second Registration Directory Service Review (RDS-WHOIS2).

The options for ATRT3 range from maintaining status quo, to moving forward with some aspects of the review (such as a focus only on the evaluation of prior review recommendations), to deferring the start of ATRT3 for approximately one year.
The options for RDS-WHOIS2 similarly range from keeping the status quo by continuing the review work under way, to limiting the work to the evaluation of prior review recommendations only, to pausing the work. We recognize the extensive work and progress the RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team has accomplished so far and thank the Review Team for their efforts, and encourage the team to participate in this Public Comment.

ICANN organization will of course continue our full commitment and support with both RDS-WHOIS2 and ATRT3 as planned. Should the public comment process and input indicate community agreement for another approach, that will then be implemented together with the community.

To find the list of the short-term options along with advantages, disadvantages, please click here [PDF, 140 KB]. Please share your public comment on short-term options by 6 July 2018.

Tip

title	The Long-Term Options

Expand
The long-term options aim to provide scheduling flexibility with appropriate checks and balances by the community and the Board. These options are based on several principles, including: aiming for no more than three to four reviews per year, recognizing limited community resources, ensuring adequate funding for reviews, and ensuring efficiency and effectiveness of the reviews. Long-term options include: staggering of the reviews adding new timing criteria providing scheduling flexibility to the timing of reviews outlined in the Bylaws. To find the list of the long-term options, along with advantages, disadvantages, and potential Bylaws implications, please click here [PDF, 116 KB]. Please share your public comment on the principles that would inform long-term options by 20 July 2018. If you would like to invite us to present options and hold a Q&A with your constituency via a remote call, please contact us: reviews@icann.org.

Expand

The long-term options aim to provide scheduling flexibility with appropriate checks and balances by the community and the Board. These options are based on several principles, including: aiming for no more than three to four reviews per year, recognizing limited community resources, ensuring adequate funding for reviews, and ensuring efficiency and effectiveness of the reviews. Long-term options include:

staggering of the reviews
adding new timing criteria
providing scheduling flexibility to the timing of reviews outlined in the Bylaws.

To find the list of the long-term options, along with advantages, disadvantages, and potential Bylaws implications, please click here [PDF, 116 KB]. Please share your public comment on the principles that would inform long-term options by 20 July 2018.

If you would like to invite us to present options and hold a Q&A with your constituency via a remote call, please contact us: reviews@icann.org.

Content

Space Tools