Changes

BCG's final report received nine public comments via email.<ref name="finalpc">[https://forum.icann.org/lists/board-review-report/pdfEtsxUaX2Uu.pdf ICANN.org - Summary of Public Comments], December 15, 2008</ref> There was also some opportunity for comment at [[ICANN 33]] in Cairo, where the final report was the subject of a presentation by BCG representatives.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/cairo2008/en/node/1935.html ICANN 33 - Workshop: Board Review], November 3, 2008</ref> However, as was noted in some of the submitted comments, the length of the session impeded public input.<ref name="finalpc" />

BCG's final report received nine public comments via email.<ref name="finalpc">[https://forum.icann.org/lists/board-review-report/pdfEtsxUaX2Uu.pdf ICANN.org - Summary of Public Comments], December 15, 2008</ref> There was also some opportunity for comment at [[ICANN 33]] in Cairo, where the final report was the subject of a presentation by BCG representatives.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/cairo2008/en/node/1935.html ICANN 33 - Workshop: Board Review], November 3, 2008</ref> However, as was noted in some of the submitted comments, the length of the session impeded public input.<ref name="finalpc" />

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" />

A common theme among 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"==

==Working Group Reports & "Implementation"==