View source for Technical Liaison Group Review

The '''Technical Liaison Group Review''' took place in 2010 and 2011, although the conversations spurred by the review process extended into 2012.<ref name="tlgdash">[https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/org/tlg ICANN.org - TLG Review Dashboard], last updated August 25, 2011</ref>

==Background==
Article 4.4 of the [[ICANN Bylaws]] requires periodic review of all [[Supporting Organizations|supporting organizations]] and [[Advisory Committee|advisory committees]], as well as the [[NomCom|Nominating Committee]].<ref name="art44">[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4.4 ICANN Bylaws - Article 4.4]</ref> The bylaws state three objectives for the review:
# to determine whether that organization, council or committee has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure; 
# if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness; and 
# whether that organization, council or committee is accountable to its constituencies, stakeholder groups, organizations and other stakeholders.<ref name="art44" />
Organizational reviews are conducted by independent examiners, selected through a competitive bidding process.<ref name="art44" /> The independent examiner works in consultation with a working group assembled by the board, who will act as implementation shepherds once the final report of the independent examiner is submitted.<ref name="hub" /> The review parameters are set by the ICANN Board, and those parameters as well as other avenues of inquiry are typically included in the request for proposals (RFP) for independent examiners.<ref name="art44" /><ref name="hub">[https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/org ICANN.org - Organizational Reviews]</ref> Reviews can take anywhere from three to five years to complete. The full review process includes [[ICANN Reviews#ICANN Review Cycle|seven phases]], including the implementation of recommendations from the review.<ref name="hub" /> Reviews must be conducted at least every five years, measuring from the date that the final report of the previous review was accepted by the ICANN Board.<ref name="hub" /> 

As with the Article 4-style [[ICANN Board Review]], the board determined during the first round of organizational reviews that it would be beneficial if the [[Technical Liaison Group]] engaged in an organizational review process.<ref name="tlgdash" /> The review was initiated by the board at [[ICANN 37]] in Nairobi in March 2010,<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-03-12-en#1.5 Resolution of the Board], March 12, 2010</ref> and continued through 2011.<ref name="tlgdash" />

==Independent Examiner==
In August 2010, [[JAS Communications]] was selected as the independent examiner.<ref name="tlgdash" /> JAS utilized partially structured interviews to gather information from community members, as well as sending email requests for context and feedback to ICANN organizations, current and former TLG members, and other individuals identified or referred during the interview process.<ref name="tlgdraftrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/tlg-review-draft-report-16oct10-en.pdf TLG Review - Independent Examiner's Draft Final Report], October 16, 2010</ref> The timeline of the information-gathering phase did not provide JAS with an opportunity to attend an ICANN Meeting.<ref name="tlgdraftrep" /> 

===Draft Final Report===
The draft final report of the independent examiner was based on information gathered from fourteen sources, either through interviews or email communications.<ref name="tlgdraftrep" /> In its executive summary, JAS advocated for the abolition of the TLG:
<blockquote>In summary, JAS found that the TLG is an antiquated structure of limited utility in the ICANN of today. The TLG: (1) does not and never did function as intended; (2) grants significant governance privileges to organizations with no reciprocity; and (3) places individuals on the Board for only a one‐year term making it nearly impossible for them to be effective contributors.
Moreover, the continued existence of the TLG poses some risk to ICANN due to the lack of role clarity and the very real opportunity for questions of loyalty and conflicts of interest to arise in the Boardroom. As such, JAS recommends that ICANN disband the TLG and replace the inter‐organizational liaison function with other more typical non‐bylaws level constructs.<ref name="tlgdraftrep" /></blockquote>

Public comment on the draft report was divided between strong agreement and strong objections to the recommendations of the report.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/tlg-review-2010-2010-10-23-en TLG Review Public Comments - Draft Final Report], October 23 - November 21, 2010</ref> JAS continued to conduct interviews and receive correspondence from its initial queries, as well as in response to the draft report.<ref name="tlgdraftrep" /> The additional information and feedback was factored into the final report.<ref name="tlgfinalrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/tlg-review-final-report-03dec10-en.pdf TLG Review - Independent Examiner's Final Report], December 3, 2010</ref> 

===Final Report===
The final report still advocated the abolition of the TLG, but refined both its recommendations and the structure of its recommendations. The final report contained only three recommendations:
# Dismantle the TLG
# Utilize non‐Bylaws constructs such as Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) to negotiate and formally memorialize institutional relationships on a bilateral basis. 
# Reaffirm the Nominating Committee’s present obligations under Article VI Section 3 [of the ICANN Bylaws]<ref> [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2010-10-28-en#VI-3 ICANN Bylaws, Article 6, Section 3], as amended at the time of the report (note that the Nominating Committee's obligations regarding selection of directors is located in Section 2 of the article)</ref> to monitor the skill set mix of Directors and appoint technically qualified Directors as necessary.<ref name="tlgfinalrep" />
In combination with these recommendations, JAS offered four "Alternative Considerations" (previously recommendations in the draft report) in the event that the TLG was not dismantled:
# consider rebuilding the TLG membership pursuant to criteria and objectives set by the ICANN Board with the full range of global, technically oriented organizations presently in existence considered for membership;
# consider making reciprocity a condition of participation for TLG organizations;
# allow the TLG organizations to collectively elect their Board liaison for a term of three years; and
# address the issue of role clarity for the TLG liaison (or for all liaison roles). Clearly specify a duty of loyalty to ICANN for the Board member liaisons, or move liaisons off of the full Board into a non‐fiduciary advisory capacity.<ref name="tlgfinalrep" />
Public comment on the Final Report was minimal. [[ETSI]], through Julian Pritchard, complimented the improvements to the report, but remained skeptical of the need for "reciprocity" of representation, particularly at board level.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/tlg-final-report/msg00000.html TLG Review Listserv - Comment of Julian Pritchard for ETSI], December 21, 2010</ref> ETSI's was the only comment received.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/tlg-final-report/ TLG Final IE Report Listserv - Public Comment]</ref>



==References==
{{reflist}}