View source for Third Accountability and Transparency Review

===Final Report===
In its prologue, the ATRT3 final report highlighted several items of concern that occurred during the process of the review that the ATRT3, due to time constraints, was unable to substantially address. All of the events had some bearing on the accountability or transparency of ICANN's actions and leadership. The review team expressed hope that the events would be the subject of a future holistic review or ATRT review cycle. The events included the proposed change of ownership for the [[.org]] registry, the [[Expedited Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (EPDP)]], accountability and transparency issues related to [[DNS Abuse]] enforcement and policies, and COVID-19 "emergency" shortening of review cycles for budget and planning documents.<ref name="finalrep" />

The report's findings were largely the same. The largest changes were seen in the recommendations made by the review team. The "suggestions" were removed, and the review team offered five recommendations that adhered to the "Operating Standards for Specific Reviews" model and methods. The five recommendations contain a large amount of detail; high-level summaries follow, but it is advisable for readers wishing to fully understand the rationales and desired outcomes for each recommendation to consult the final report:
====High Priority Recommendations====
'''''1. Amending Article 4 Reviews''''':
* '''Specific Reviews''' should be handled as follows:
** Suspend the RDS/WHOIS review until the EPDP on the Temporary Specification is complete;
** Conduct one further CCT review, initiated within two years of the addition to the root of new gTLDs from a new application round. Limit the timeframe of the review to one year, and ensure that a framework for data collection is already in place and that a complete data set is available prior to the initiation of work;
** Upon the completion of [[Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency Review|SSR2]], suspend any further SSR2 reviews until the next ATRT review (or any new review that takes over the obligations of the ATRT) makes a determination whether SSR reviews should be amended, terminated, or kept as is. The ICANN Board will have the authority to launch an SSR review if it deems it necessary; and
** ATRT reviews to continue, with recommended improvements, and with the next ATRT review starting no later than two years after the approval of the board of any recommendation from the first Holistic Review (see below)
* ICANN should establish and perform a new "'''Holistic Review'''" no later than one year after board approval of any recommendation from ATRT3. After that, alternate the timing of ATRT and Holistic Reviews, so that each review begins no later than twenty-four (ATRT) or thirty months after the approval of the first recommendation contained in the other review. (As in the draft report, this is designed to allow at least two "continuous improvement" cycles to occur within organizations between Holistic Reviews.) 
** No other reviews should be launched during the pendency of a Holistic Review;
** Holistic Reviews shall last a maximum of eighteen months and operate in accordance with the Operating Standards for Specific Reviews;
** Holistic Reviews will focus on: 1) continuous improvement efforts of SOs, ACs, and the NomCom; 2) Inter-organizational communication and collaboration; 3) accountability of the SOs, ACs, or constituent parts to their members and constituencies; and 4) reviewing the entirety of the ICANN organizational structure to determine if all the constituent parts still serve a purpose, or if there are opportunities to alter the structure(s) and operations of ICANN to better represent the community and improve the effectiveness
* '''Organizational Reviews''' should be transformed into "continuous improvement programs" within each structure currently subject to an Article 4.4 review.
** Allowing for some flexibility so that each organization can optimize its approach to continuous improvement, each program will include annual satisfaction surveys of members/participants, annual assessment of the improvement program (which may either be self-directed or facilitated), and budgetary and staff support that at a minimum matches the operational support for the current organizational review process.
** Results of the annual surveys and assessments will be published and will be reviewed during the next Holistic Review.

'''''2. Prioritization of Review and CCWG Recommendations''''': Create an annual process of prioritization that gathers representatives from ICANN Board, ICANN org, and any SOs or ACs that wish to participate (one representative from each). This panel would operate by consensus, and would integrate into existing financial and strategic planning processes. The panel would be charged to establish a priority order for recommendations resulting from reviews, cross-community working groups, and any other community-sourced process the Board deems appropriate. Similar to the Operating Standards for Specific Reviews, the prioritization process shall employ the following decision-making guidance:
* Relevance to ICANN’s mission, commitments, core values, and strategic objectives;
* Value and impact of implementation;
* Cost of implementation and budget availability;
* Complexity and time to implement;
* Prerequisites and dependencies with other recommendations; and
* Relevant information from implementation shepherds (or equivalents)

====Medium Priority Recommendations====
'''''3. Accountability Indicators & Strategic and Operational Planning Transparency''''': Scrap "Accountability Indicators" and instead provide plain language descriptions of the Board's strategic objectives, goals, and operating plans. Measure the outcomes of such plans and publish results in annual reports. Publish a summary report at the end of each five-year strategic planning cycle, with a description of objectives and goals, initiatives intended to meet those goals, and the success of such initiatives.

====Low Priority Recommendations====
'''''4. Public Comment''''': Improve public comment proceedings as recommended in the draft report: provide a plain-language summary of the document being published; list key questions raised by the document and for which answers are sought; where appropriate and feasible, translate the summary and key questions into the official ICANN languages; and if relevant, identify the intended audience of the document or the key questions.

'''''5. ATRT2 Implementation''''': Review the implementation of ATRT2 Recommendations in light of ATRT3’s assessment of these and complete their implementation subject to prioritization.