Versions Compared

Old Version 16

changes.mady.by.user Yvette Guigneaux

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Jean-Baptiste Deroulez

Saved on

Key

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

Image Modified

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

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

During ICANN61, many discussions were held on thebudget and prioritiesfor ICANN. The

goal being to operate more efficiently and effectively, while considering the availability of the community and our resources.

One theme that continued to arise was community member concerns and observations regarding the number of concurrent reviews in the context of volunteer and resource strain – for example, currently, there are eleven reviews running at the same time.
  • To build feedback from the Community, we opened two Public Comment periods to provide transparency and get input on a range of available options, and to understand which options – or new suggestions - the community would support. We are inviting public comment on the short-term and long-term options stated below.  
    • In addition, two Webinars will be be held with details of proposals and Q&A opportunity for the community. 
    Webinar 1: 07 June 2018: 5:00-6:00 UTC [local time]   
    Webinar 2: 07 June 2018:17:00-18:00 UTC [local time]  
    To participate, please request a calendar invitation by sending your email request to mssi-secretariat@icann.org and indicate which webinar you will join

     

    ATRT3

    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:

    1. ATRT2

      1. Assessment of implementation of recommendations

    2. Specific reviews

      1. Qualitative and quantitative assessments of effectiveness of previous (Section 4.6), i.e, SSR1, RDS1, ATRT1.

      2. 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

    3. Organizational reviews

      1.  Qualitative and quantitative assessments of effectiveness of previous, i.e., RSSAC, SSAC, NOMCOM, GNSO, ccNSO, At Large, ASO.

    4. Systemic review

      1.  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

    comment

    comments,

    the

    webinars and/or

    both

    engagement sessions.

  • After the Public Comment period closes, we will analyze the comments that were received and coordinate with the Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (OEC) to identify whether there is agreement in the community and if so, recommendations to the Board on the paths forward.  Thank you for being a part of streamlining reviews. 
    • Tip
    titleThe 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.

    Tip
    titleThe 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.

    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:

    1. 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.

    2. By ICANN67. Subject to outcome and timing of public consultation, finalization of principles and Board consideration to adopt and include in Operating Standards.
    3. 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

    • Specific Reviews and Organizational Reviews landing page
    • Operating Standards page