Proposed new recommendations Cross-Community efforts (9.1e)

 

Hypothesis of problem

There is a general perception among many ICANN participants that ICANN is too “silo-ized”. Augmented by the occasional meeting between selected pairings of AC/SO/Sub-units, most work is carried out within the confines of particular ICANN organizational units. Where joint meetings do occur, it is relatively rare that there is a true exchange of ideas and in-depth discussion among participants.

The AoC in paragraph 9.1 (e) requires:

Assessing the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations, and effective and timely policy development.

While efforts have been ongoing in the enhancement of cross-community deliberations, there are still issues that need to be improved in this area.

Background research undertaken

 The Berkman report, included as an appendix in the ATRT1 report includes:

(c) Discussion

A lack of sufficient cross-community deliberation at early stages of policy discussions may cause delays by preventing various stakeholders within the ICANN community from contributing to the identification of major issues related to a specific policy. For example, more cross-community dialogue before the publication of the first version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook for the new gTLD program may have helped identify the “overarching issues” and other controversial issues that subsequently arose.

The establishment of working groups containing representatives from multiple Advisory Committees (ACs) and Supporting Organizations (SOs) before the finalization of policy recommendations may help identify and resolve “hot button” issues. Increasing opportunities for cross-community interaction at ICANN meetings may help provide clear channels for discussion among various ICANN constituent bodies.

We recognize that enhancing cross-community dialogue will not preclude dissatisfied participants from looking for additional venues to express their dissent, e.g., by lobbying Board members to address their concerns or reopen aspects of the policy-making policy. Nor do we believe that such actions are inappropriate in all instances.

Seeking additional opportunities for cross-community dialogue, both formally and informally, is intended to be judiciously applied as a complement to the various other established mechanisms for building consensus and collective deliberation.

 (d) Recommendation

Encourage ICANN’s various constituent bodies to engage in cross-community interactions in early stages of policy initiatives, discussions, and deliberations. Explore explicit policies and procedures for triggering cross-community deliberation among ICANN’s various constituent bodies.

 

While GNSO has made a transition to the working group model,  and while all community members are invited to particpate in any GNSO working group, there are still groups, such as the GAC that find it difficult to particpate in these working groups.  There are also occasions where the corss-community concern is larger that a gTLD related issue; on these occasions a structure needs to be created where the apporpriate SO or ACs participate as equals in chartering the cross-community effort.

There are also occasions in which it may be appropriate for the Board of even the CEO to initiate cross-commuity groups to work on ICANN's cross cutting issues.

There have also been a variety of experiments in creating cross community groups including:

 

• Joint IDN working Group - ccNSO and GNSO
• Joint applicant support group - ALAC and GNSO
• …  GNSO and SSAC
• Rec 6   ALAC, GAC and GNSO
• …

 These and other past efforts can be reviewed to understand some of the practices that have worked as well as processes that have not work so well.

Summary of ICANN input

• The problem of silos is raised time and again within ICANN, most notable in relation to the Board, the SOs and AC. It is also heard within sub-units, such as the various constituent bodies of the GNSO not regularly communicating, and the Regional segments of At-Large working in isolation. At the same time, everyone tends to have completely packed days during ICANN meetings, and those who participate in activities remotely between ICANN meetings tend to fill their calendars based on their own home-unit.
  
  

Summary of community input via the public comment process and face to face meetings

Summary of other relevant research

Before each ICANN Face to face meeting, there are Informal Chatham house meetings of the SOAC chairs with the CEO.  These meeting have included discussion on cross-community efforts.

 

Relevant ICANN bylaws

 The Bylaws define each unit within ICANN but with the exception of a few references to Liaison’s do not contemplate cross-unit efforts..

Relevant ICANN published policies

 

Relevant ICANN published procedures

 

ATRT2 analysis

The natural tendency for groups to work within their own territory and among those where they feel some level of kinship is strong. Moreover, for most groups within ICANN, there is an overwhelming amount of work to done, without sufficient resources or time to do it all. When individuals do try to penetrate the boundaries of other groups, they are met with reactions ranging from being welcomed to outright hostility. It will take positive action from ICANN leaders to change this.

Working methods also vary significantly across ICANN units. When units do decide to try to work together, the selection of operating rules have at times been problematic. The GAC is often the focal of discussions related to working methods, but in fact, as each operational arm of ICANN has evolved, so have its working methods, and there would be clashes regardless of which two units are selected for formal joint efforts.

Lastly, everything is needed yesterday. Forcing cross-constituency work is sure to take longer, even if only due to the start-up pains of figuring out how to do it.

 

Draft recommendation

Look for opportunities where there are real benefits from joint-efforts. The Board in particular could charter cross-constituency groups where there are synergies between and amongst ICANN units.

• keep up the efforts currently underway for broader cross-community 
• learn from previous efforts and produce guideline for future effort

ATRT2 to provide metrics that can be base lined and further tracked.

 

Public Comment on Draft Recommendations

 

Final recommendation