ICANN Board Review: Difference between revisions

Line 69:

Some the public commenters was that BCG did not understand ICANN or its unique role and circumstances.<ref name="finalpc" /> The review working group took pains in their own reports to acknowledge that the text of the final report demonstrated an understanding of ICANN's purpose and goals, noting also that the report (as quoted above) clearly articulated that the goal of the review was to identify and improve what works for ICANN. This undercut one main line of criticism from the public comments - that the review focused on treating ICANN's board like "any other corporate board."<ref name="firstwg">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-review-interim-report-20feb09-en.pdf Board Review - Draft Report of the Board Review Working Group], February 20, 2009</ref> Many commenters took issue with certain recommendations in the report, notably the proposal to reduce the size of the board. Others, however, agreed with the report and its objectives.<ref name="finalpc" />

==Working Group Reports & Implementation ~~Strategy~~==

==Working Group Reports & "Implementation"==

In its draft report to the board, the review working group agreed with the recommendations in the final report, but noted that in some cases (Recommendations 2 and 3), events had outpaced the arrival of the report, and the board was already implementing changes that addressed the issues raised. In the case of Recommendation 1 (board size and composition) and Recommendation 5 ("high performance" board culture, and specifically compensation of board members), the working group noted that these were complex issues that required input from the community before adoption of a specific plan.<ref name="firstwg" />

In its draft report to the board, the review working group agreed with the recommendations in the final report, but noted that in some cases (Recommendations 2 and 3), events had outpaced the arrival of the report, and the board was already implementing changes that addressed the issues raised. In the case of Recommendation 1 (board size and composition) and Recommendation 5 ("high performance" board culture, and specifically compensation of board members), the working group noted that these were complex issues that required input from the community before adoption of a specific plan.<ref name="firstwg" /> The draft report was discussed at [[ICANN 34]] in Mexico City.<ref name="secondwg">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-review-second-interim-report-05jun09-en.pdf Board Review - Second Interim Report of the Board Review Working Group], June 5, 2009</ref>

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.

==References==

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 Some the public commenters was that BCG did not understand ICANN or its unique role and circumstances.<ref name="finalpc" /> The review working group took pains in their own reports to acknowledge that the text of the final report demonstrated an understanding of ICANN's purpose and goals, noting also that the report (as quoted above) clearly articulated that the goal of the review was to identify and improve what works for ICANN. This undercut one main line of criticism from the public comments - that the review focused on treating ICANN's board like "any other corporate board."<ref name="firstwg">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-review-interim-report-20feb09-en.pdf Board Review - Draft Report of the Board Review Working Group], February 20, 2009</ref> Many commenters took issue with certain recommendations in the report, notably the proposal to reduce the size of the board. Others, however, agreed with the report and its objectives.<ref name="finalpc" />
-==Working Group Reports & Implementation Strategy==
+==Working Group Reports & "Implementation"==
-In its draft report to the board, the review working group agreed with the recommendations in the final report, but noted that in some cases (Recommendations 2 and 3), events had outpaced the arrival of the report, and the board was already implementing changes that addressed the issues raised. In the case of Recommendation 1 (board size and composition) and Recommendation 5 ("high performance" board culture, and specifically compensation of board members), the working group noted that these were complex issues that required input from the community before adoption of a specific plan.<ref name="firstwg" />
+In its draft report to the board, the review working group agreed with the recommendations in the final report, but noted that in some cases (Recommendations 2 and 3), events had outpaced the arrival of the report, and the board was already implementing changes that addressed the issues raised. In the case of Recommendation 1 (board size and composition) and Recommendation 5 ("high performance" board culture, and specifically compensation of board members), the working group noted that these were complex issues that required input from the community before adoption of a specific plan.<ref name="firstwg" /> The draft report was discussed at [[ICANN 34]] in Mexico City.<ref name="secondwg">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-review-second-interim-report-05jun09-en.pdf Board Review - Second Interim Report of the Board Review Working Group], June 5, 2009</ref>
+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.
 ==References==
 {{reflist}}