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"==

Public comment on the draft report was minimal.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/board-review-2009/ ICANN.org Listserv Archive - Draft Final Report of the Board Review Working Group</ref> The working group submitted its final report to the board in January 2010.<ref name="dashboard" /><ref name="wgfinal">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-review-final-26jan10-en.pdf Final Report of the Board Review Working Group], January 26, 2010</ref> In nearly every recommendation category, the working group notes that either the board, a committee of the board, or both, are "already working" on the recommendations of BCG's final report, or something like them, in response to the issues raised by the report. As a result, the final report of the working group contains a great deal of support for the recommendations contained in BCG's final report, but very little implementation guidance.<ref name="wgfinal" />  

Public comment on the draft report was minimal.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/board-review-2009/ ICANN.org Listserv Archive - Draft Final Report of the Board Review Working Group</ref> The working group submitted its final report to the board in January 2010.<ref name="dashboard" /><ref name="wgfinal">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-review-final-26jan10-en.pdf Final Report of the Board Review Working Group], January 26, 2010</ref> In nearly every recommendation category, the working group notes that either the board, a committee of the board, or both, are "already working" on the recommendations of BCG's final report, or something like them, in response to the issues raised by the report. As a result, the final report of the working group contains a great deal of support for the recommendations contained in BCG's final report, but very little implementation guidance.<ref name="wgfinal" />  

The Board accepted the final report in March 2010, along with two other Article 4.4 organizational reviews ([[First SSAC Organizational Review|SSAC1]] and [[First NomCom Organizational Review|NomCom1), and instructed the [[Organizational Effectiveness Committee|SIC]] to develop implementation plans for each.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-03-12-en#1.6 Resolution of the Board], March 12, 2010</ref> In June 2010, the board again addressed the three reviews from the March meeting, and instructed the SIC to present "final implementation plans" for each.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-06-25-en#1.4 Resolution of the Board], June 25, 2010</ref>  

The Board accepted the final report in March 2010, along with two other Article 4.4 organizational reviews ([[First SSAC Organizational Review|SSAC1]] and [[First NomCom Organizational Review|NomCom1]]), and instructed the [[Organizational Effectiveness Committee|SIC]] to develop implementation plans for each.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-03-12-en#1.6 Resolution of the Board], March 12, 2010</ref> In June 2010, the board again addressed the three reviews from the March meeting, and instructed the SIC to present "final implementation plans" for each.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-06-25-en#1.4 Resolution of the Board], June 25, 2010</ref>  

ICANN's Board Review dashboard indicates that the June 2010 board resolution was the end of the implementation phase for the first and only Board Review.<ref name="dashboard" /> Implementation details are unavailable, likely because the working group's final report did not recommend any specific implementation plans.

ICANN's Board Review dashboard indicates that the June 2010 board resolution was the end of the implementation phase for the first and only Board Review.<ref name="dashboard" /> Implementation details are unavailable, likely because the working group's final report did not recommend any specific implementation plans.

==References==

==References==

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}