3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 74:
Line 74: − + + + + + + + + +
→Working Group Reports & "Implementation"
Public comment on the working group's draft report was again mixed, with strong support shown for certain topics (board compensation) but a persistent theme of disappointment that the review did not "understand" ICANN or its operations. There was sufficient diversity of responses that the working group saw fit to issue a second interim report for public comment. This second report was presented for public comment as well as a discussion session at [[ICANN 35]] in Sydney.<ref name="secondwg" /> In the second report, the working group stated that it was narrowing the focus of discussion exclusively to the issues of board size, board member compensation, and the timing of appointment and length of tenure of board members.<ref name="secondwg" /> The report stated that the board was already addressing the issues raised in Recommendations 2-4, and that the working group was in support of implementing recommendations 6-8, with some caveats regarding the feasibility of specific proposals within BCG's final report.<ref name="secondwg" />
Public comment on the working group's draft report was again mixed, with strong support shown for certain topics (board compensation) but a persistent theme of disappointment that the review did not "understand" ICANN or its operations. There was sufficient diversity of responses that the working group saw fit to issue a second interim report for public comment. This second report was presented for public comment as well as a discussion session at [[ICANN 35]] in Sydney.<ref name="secondwg" /> In the second report, the working group stated that it was narrowing the focus of discussion exclusively to the issues of board size, board member compensation, and the timing of appointment and length of tenure of board members.<ref name="secondwg" /> The report stated that the board was already addressing the issues raised in Recommendations 2-4, and that the working group was in support of implementing recommendations 6-8, with some caveats regarding the feasibility of specific proposals within BCG's final report.<ref name="secondwg" />
The vast majority of discussion of the second interim report occurred at the [[ICANN 35]] meeting in Sydney. Only one comment was submitted via email.
The vast majority of discussion of the second interim report occurred at the [[ICANN 35]] meeting in Sydney. Only one substantive comment was submitted via email.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/board-second-interim/ ICANN.org Listserv Archive - Public Comment on Second Interim Report of Board Review Working Group]</ref> In its draft final report, the working group discussed the comments and feedback received in Sydney as well as via email.<ref name="wgdraftfin">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-review-wg-draft-final-report-19sep09-en.pdf Draft Final Report of the BR-WG], September 19, 2002</ref> Of the three outstanding issues listed in the second interim report, the following changes occurred:
* the draft final report did not recommend a reduction in board size until a period of at least three years had passed, on the theory that this would give other improvements and changes a sufficient amount of time to affect positive change;
* the draft final report did not recommend any plan to compensate board members. It did, however, recommend an increase in the term of board service to four years, with a limit of two consecutive terms of service, and an option for the board member to resign after two years of service in a second consecutive term.
Public comment on the draft report was minimal.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/board-review-2009/ ICANN.org Listserv Archive - Draft Final Report of the Board Review Working Group</ref> The working group submitted its final report to the board in January 2010.<ref name="dashboard" /><ref name="wgfinal">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-review-final-26jan10-en.pdf Final Report of the Board Review Working Group], January 26, 2010</ref> In nearly every recommendation category, the working group notes that either the board, a committee of the board, or both, are "already working" on the recommendations of BCG's final report, or something like them, in response to the issues raised by the report. As a result, the final report of the working group contains a great deal of support for the recommendations contained in BCG's final report, but very little implementation guidance.<ref name="wgfinal" />
The Board accepted the final report in March 2010, along with two other Article 4.4 organizational reviews ([[First SSAC Organizational Review|SSAC1]] and [[First NomCom Organizational Review|NomCom1), and instructed the [[Organizational Effectiveness Committee|SIC]] to develop implementation plans for each.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-03-12-en#1.6 Resolution of the Board], March 12, 2010</ref> In June 2010, the board again addressed the three reviews from the March meeting, and instructed the SIC to present "final implementation plans" for each.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-06-25-en#1.4 Resolution of the Board], June 25, 2010</ref>
ICANN's Board Review dashboard indicates that the June 2010 board resolution was the end of the implementation phase for the first and only Board Review.<ref name="dashboard" /> Implementation details are unavailable, likely because the working group's final report did not recommend any specific implementation plans.
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}