Changes

The draft report received comments from many ICANN bodies, as well as the board.<ref name="draftpc">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-atrt3-draft-report-14feb20-en.pdf Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding], February 14, 2020</ref> There was general support for the suggestions regarding the implementation of ATRT2 recommendations, the improvement and expansion of public comment modes and processes, and the need for prioritization. However, the creation of a community-led prioritization authority was met with skepticism and concern. The Board suggested that existing community mechanisms might be leveraged to provide ICANN's community with a voice in prioritization discussions. [[RySG]], [[IPC]], and other commenters feared the insularity of such an organization, as well as the perception that "ICANN insiders" were making decisions for the entire community.<ref name="draftpc" /> The two options regarding the reform of reviews each received many comments. While there was a general consensus that Option 1 was a non-starter (the ICANN Board, for example, stated that it "does not consider Option 1 (as described in the Draft Report) to be viable"), the responses to Option 2 varied widely in enthusiasm for, and faith in, such an option.<ref name="draftpc" /> Many commenters stated that the proposal would need considerable refinement, and some (including the board) suggested that the task may be too big for ATRT3's limited timeline.<ref name="draftpc" /> There was also pushback from the ICANN Board and others regarding the review team's decision to offer both "recommendations" and "suggestions."<ref name="draftpc" />

The draft report received comments from many ICANN bodies, as well as the board.<ref name="draftpc">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-atrt3-draft-report-14feb20-en.pdf Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding], February 14, 2020</ref> There was general support for the suggestions regarding the implementation of ATRT2 recommendations, the improvement and expansion of public comment modes and processes, and the need for prioritization. However, the creation of a community-led prioritization authority was met with skepticism and concern. The Board suggested that existing community mechanisms might be leveraged to provide ICANN's community with a voice in prioritization discussions. [[RySG]], [[IPC]], and other commenters feared the insularity of such an organization, as well as the perception that "ICANN insiders" were making decisions for the entire community.<ref name="draftpc" /> The two options regarding the reform of reviews each received many comments. While there was a general consensus that Option 1 was a non-starter (the ICANN Board, for example, stated that it "does not consider Option 1 (as described in the Draft Report) to be viable"), the responses to Option 2 varied widely in enthusiasm for, and faith in, such an option.<ref name="draftpc" /> Many commenters stated that the proposal would need considerable refinement, and some (including the board) suggested that the task may be too big for ATRT3's limited timeline.<ref name="draftpc" /> There was also pushback from the ICANN Board and others regarding the review team's decision to offer both "recommendations" and "suggestions."<ref name="draftpc" />

The review team analyzed and incorporated the comments into the final version of its report, which was delivered to the board in May 2020.<ref name="finalrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atrt3-report-29may20-en.pdf ATRT3 - Final Report], May 29, 2020</ref>  

The review team analyzed and incorporated the comments into the final version of its report, which was delivered to the board in May 2020.<ref name="finalrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atrt3-report-29may20-en.pdf ATRT3 - Final Report], May 29, 2020</ref><ref name="wtfmeeting" />

===Final Report===

===Final Report===