Third Accountability and Transparency Review: Difference between revisions

The '''Third Accountability and Transparency Review''' (ATRT3) was initiated in January 2017.<ref name="dashboard">[https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/specific-reviews/atrt ICANN.org - ATRT Dashboard]</ref> By May 2021, the review was in the plan implementation phase.<ref name="dashboard" /> By April 2023, four of the 15 Board-approved ATRT3 recommendations have been completed, including improvements for collecting community feedback and suspending future RDS and SSR reviews until the next ATRT considers their futures. Ten out of the 15 recommendations are currently being worked on, including the re-examination of the ATRT3 implementation, which is expected to be completed by [[ICANN 77]]. The key recommendations at play include Recommendation 3.2, which proposes another CCT review, limited to one year, starting within two years after the [[Sub Pro|next round]] of [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD]]s, with data collection beforehand; Recommendation 3.4 is that ATRT Reviews should continue suggesting terminations, amendments, or creations of periodic reviews. Recommendation 3.5 creates the [[ICANN Holistic Review]], based on Operating Standards for [[ICANN Reviews#Specific Reviews|Specific Reviews]] to improve SOs/ACs/the NomCom practices, collaboration mechanisms, and accountability. Recommendation 3.6 is that [[ICANN Reviews#Organizational Reviews|Organizational Reviews]] should evolve into ICANN Org-established improvement programs in each SO/AC/NC, including an annual satisfaction survey, regular assessment, and funding. This recommendation has not yet been started due to a dependency on an ongoing initiative, the Pilot Holistic Review, before developing the Pilot Continuous Improvement Program. Recommendations 3.2 and 3.4 require modifications to the [[ICANN Bylaws]] and are being worked on, while the implementation of Recommendations 3.5 and 3.6 may impact Recommendation 3.2. Work on the [[ICANN Holistic Review|Pilot Holistic Review]] is ongoing and will include a second [[Public Comment]] period with a focus on the lack of agreement within the community. Recommendations 4.1-4.5 are being worked on to enhance ICANN's accountability and transparency through the evaluation of metrics and targeted outcomes. Finally, Recommendation 5 is being addressed through the [[Prioritization]] framework.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/specific-reviews-q1-2023-report-31mar23-en.pdf Q1 2023 Specific Reviews Report, ICANN Files]</ref>  

ICANN's board enshrined these commitments (and the associated reviews) in its [[ICANN Bylaws|Bylaws]] in Article 1 (Mission, Commitments, and Core Values)<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article1 ICANN Bylaws, Article 1]</ref> and in Article 4 (Accountability and Review).<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 ICANN Bylaws, Article 4]</ref> Article 4.6 deals with "Specific Reviews," each of which is tied to one of the commitments in the Affirmation of Commitments.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4.6 ICANN Bylaws, Article 4.6]</ref>

The call for volunteers for ATRT3 was initially put out in January 2017. It was subsequently extended in April 2017. At the time of extension, the Board noted that multiple factors were impacting the timing of ATRT3. Because of the timing of [[Second Accountability and Transparency Review|ATRT2]], the ICANN Bylaws required that the review be launched no later than October 2017. Meanwhile, the Cross Community Working Group on ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) notified the Board in 2016 that its work was overlapping substantially with the scope of ATRT reviews. The CCWG-Accountability co-chairs raised the possibility of crafting a narrow scope for ATRT3, to avoid duplication of work.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/call-for-volunteers-for-the-third-review-of-icann-accountability-and-transparency-atrt3-31-1-2017-en ICANN.org - Call for Volunteers for ATRT3], January 1, 2017</ref> At the same time, the [[IANA Transition]] was just wrapping up, and many voices within the ICANN community were speaking up about volunteer fatigue.<ref name="launchres">[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-10-25-en#2.a Resolution of the Board], October 25, 2018</ref> As a result, in 2018 the Board submitted three separate papers for public comment: "Short-Term options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews,"<ref>[https://www.icann.org/public-comments/specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-2018-05-14-en ICANN Public Comment Archive - Short-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline for Specific Reviews], May 14, 2018</ref> "Long-Term Options to Adjust the Timeline of Reviews,"<ref>https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-long-term-timeline-2018-05-14-en ICANN Public Comment Archive - Long Term Options to Adjust the Timeline of Reviews], May 14, 2018</ref> and a follow-up "Next Steps on Reviews" document.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-next-steps-2018-09-05-en ICANN Public Comment Archive - Next Steps on Reviews]</ref>

# Review processes - how ICANN receives public input, as well as a review of the implementation of recommendations from [[Second Accountability and Transparency Review|ATRT2]];

# The impact of ICANN's decision-making process as it relates to the broader Internet community and the effectiveness of ICANN's policy development process in fostering cross-community participation.<ref name="workplan" />

The survey received 88 individual responses (with 50 of those responses completing the majority of the survey) and responses from 14 of the 17 specifically invited ICANN groups.<ref name="draftrep" />  

ATRT3's sessions at [[ICANN 66]] took place in parallel with the wider community investigation of improvements for Article 4 reviews. ICANN staff facilitated a conversation around enhancing the effectiveness of review recommendations and their implementation,<ref>[https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/3K7yWpL4XcKHYPFHn ICANN 66 Archive - Enhancing the Effectiveness of Reviews], November 4, 2019</ref> where [[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]] and [[Pat Kane]] from the ATRT3 review team presented early impressions of the team in relation to review process.<ref>[https://cdn.filestackcontent.com/content=t:attachment,f:%22I66YUL_Mon04Nov2019-Enhancing%20the%20Effect%20of%20Rev%20Rec%20and%20Their%20Impl-en.pdf ICANN 66 Archive - Transcript: Enhancing Effectiveness of Reviews], November 4, 2019</ref> At its meeting with the Board Caucus, the review team presented its findings, suggestions, and recommendations to date.<ref name="caucusvid">[https://livestream.com/icannmeeting/events/8844422 ICANN 66 Archive - Video Recording, ATRT3 Meeting with Board Caucus], November 6, 2019</ref> At the time, the team was considering three options for the reform of Article 4 reviews:

Finally, the review team held an engagement session for the general community.<ref>[https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/hYLNP4nyjRKrA5aSJ ICANN 66 Archive - Engagement Session with the ATRT3 Review Team], November 7, 2019</ref> The presentation focused on the five topic areas, and elaborated on the review team's impressions regarding specific and organizational reviews.<ref name="engagevid">[https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/RDv_sYU2P9uX9_RWF1tGsDuplirHMrzyrqMgfWraJNqwIumekTziMw?startTime=1573151412000 ICANN 66 Archive - Video Recording of Engagement Session with ATRT3], November 7, 2019</ref> The team suggested that multiple factors may be present in the near-universal dissatisfaction with organizational reviews, and the less intense, but still substantial dissatisfaction with specific reviews:

* There was a similar broad agreement that there should be a mechanism for retiring recommendations if they become moot or do not seem likely to be implemented;

* There was near-unanimous agreement that the ICANN community should have a role as a decisional participant in any mechanism or process that makes recommendations regarding the prioritization of work.<ref name="draftrep" />

The draft report made a distinction between recommendations and suggestions:  

<blockquote>The ATRT3 is focused on ensuring that its recommendations meet the requirements as set out in the [[Operating Standards for Specific Reviews]]<ref name="osspec">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/operating-standards-specific-reviews-23jun19-en.pdf Operating Standards for Specific Reviews], June 23, 2019</ref> while suggestions may not necessarily meet this standard.5 The ATRT3 does not consider suggestions to be less important than recommendations. The determination if an item is a suggestion or a recommendation will be finalized in ATRT3’s final report.<ref name="draftrep" /></blockquote>

# ATRT2 Implementation Issues - A number of suggestions specifically address the failure to implement recommendations from ATRT2. In addition, the report recommends that in-progress specific reviews appoint and empower implementation shepherds as recommended by the Operating Standards for Specific Reviews.<ref name="osspec" /> In addition, the report recommends ensuring that implementation is actively tracked on the ICANN website, and that if any changes are made to the process of tracking and reporting implementation, that legacy web pages and other resources are updated to reflect the changes and provide the location of the new processes.<ref name="draftrep" />

# Article 4 Reviews - Noting that it is best to approach the reformation of the review process "holistically," the draft report provided two possible options for addressing the myriad issues relating to specific and organzational reviews:

## Maintain the current set of specific and organizational reviews in combination with a new oversight mechanism to manage reviews and the implementation of recommendations. The new mechanism should be housed in an Independent Accountability Office (similar to the [[ICANN Ombudsman]]), which would have responsibility for SO/AC accountability as well as the job of coordinating the timing of reviews and the implementation of recommendations; or

## Maintain the spirit of Article 4.4 organizational reviews but conduct them as three- to five-day leadership workshops focused on self-assessment in a context of a continuous improvement process. The workshops would occur at least once every three years, or more often as desired by each organization subject to Article 4.4 review. Outcomes and recommendations from these workshops would be publically posted, and implementation would be tracked and reported on as well. The reports from these workshop reviews would feed into a new holistic organizational review of all SOs, ACs, and the NomCom. The holistic review would take place every seven years and have a maximum duration of twelve to eighteen months. The time between holistic reviews allows at least two cycles of self-assessment and improvement for each organization, as well as sufficient time to implement recommendations from the holistic review. For the Article 4.6 reviews, consolidate ATRT and the "accountability and transparency" directives of the CCT and RDS reviews into a single Accountability and Transparency review, to be conducted every seven years with a maximum duration of twelve to eighteen months. Conduct the SSR review as a three- to five-day workshop, or maintain the current review process for SSR 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

The report generated a number of detailed public comments.<ref name="finalpc">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-atrt3-final-report-31aug20-en.pdf Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding], August 31, 2020</ref> The [[IPC]], [[BC]], and [[ISPCP]] comments echoed (and sometimes replicated) the statements made in the minority statements presented by their appointees to the ATRT3 review team. The GNSO Council also expressed concern regarding the removal of important external accountability measures contained within the Article 4 reviews. Most of the other respondents, including the [[ALAC]] and the [[ccNSO]], agreed with the recommendations, with some taking issue with various specifics in the proposed implementation.<ref name="finalpc" />

| Board approves these recommendations and notes that the ITI covers many of the action items contained in the recommendations; thus, implementation of recommendations should be subject to the ITI timeline. 1.1 and 1.2 may need to be separately tracked as they involve distinct work efforts.

| The Board directs ICANN org to undertake a thorough analysis of the ATRT3’s suggestions pertaining to the implementation of ATRT2 recommendations, and to engage with the ATRT3 Implementation Shepherds regarding those suggestions to identify resource-effective means, where appropriate, to complete the implementation of the ATRT2 recommendations discussed in the ATRT3 assessment.

| These recommendations require amendments to the ICANN Bylaws, which require broad community support for the proposed amendments. There needs to be a set of objective, uniform criteria in place for a future ATRT team to utilize regarding decisions to terminate or amend reviews

| The Board approves Recommendations 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4, subject to community agreement to the Bylaws change. When deemed appropriate through the prioritization process, the Board directs ICANN org to begin the process to make the appropriate Bylaw amendments, but if the Empowered Community rejects the Bylaws changes, further ICANN community discussion would be required before implementation. Further, the Board notes that there may be a need to track the implementation of Recommendations 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 separately due to the distinct work efforts and implementation steps required.

| Simultaneous launching of continuous improvement mechanisms within ICANN structures and the Holistic Review will be challenging. Recommended timeframes for full implementation of these processes may be unrealistic. The framework and standards for continuous improvement efforts across structures need consideration and development to ensure apples-to-apples comparisons and scoring.

| Estimated cost of planning for and implementing Continuous Improvement Programs for all SO/AC/NCs (could include developing periodic surveys, advising on methodology, and changes over time) in terms of possible external consultants (plus ICANN org time TBD): $150,000-200,000 (one time cost). The estimated cost of supporting Continuous Improvement Programs’ annual review: $35,000-50,000 per year per structure (provided they elect to hire independent examiners).

| Similar issues as above - simultaneous launch of evolution process and Holistic Review may be challenging. The recommended timeframes may not be realistic, and the transition period may involve some overlap with status quo efforts to improve the MSM, review process, and other projects. Objective standards for assessing continuous improvement progress need to be developed. The recommendation addresses some, but not all, of the problems with review processes that have been identified through a collaborative effort between the ICANN Board, org, and community.

| Recommendations 4.1 and 4.2 are already within the scope of the budget; 4.3-4.5 would involve additional costs, which would either need to be separately resourced or which may involve trade-offs in implementation between the recommendations.

| The Board approves Recommendations 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 subject to prioritization, noting however that the timing requirement stipulated in Recommendation 4.3 (that a supplementary document be produced within six months of approving this recommendation) is not feasible within the specified timeline.

Create an annual process of prioritization that gathers representatives from the 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.

| The Board notes the community, Board, and org’s ongoing efforts to prioritize ICANN’s work as part of the planning process. Implementation of R5 will be incorporated as part of the prioritization of all of ICANN’s work, using a framework for prioritization is developed. The work on prioritization will include the work plans for the Planning at ICANN Operating Initiative as included in ICANN’s FY21-25 Operating Plan.

| Estimated cost of planning for and implementing a community-led prioritization process and running a pilot of such a process could include possible external consultants (plus ICANN org time TBD): $75,000-150,000 (one-time cost).

| The Board's submitted public comment on the draft report stated that existing prioritization efforts and processes should be leveraged, instead of creating an entirely new entity. The design of a community-led prioritization process will need to take into account, and/or be complementary to the efforts to prioritize the ongoing work of all of ICANNs as part of the Planning at ICANN operating initiative as included in the FY21-25 Operating Plan. The Board's fiduciary duty to make decisions in the public interest and the interests of a secure and stable DNS cannot be waived or superseded by a community process.

| The Board approves this recommendation and directs ICANN org to proceed to implementation. The Board acknowledges that the implementation of this recommendation is dependent upon the need to prioritize all of ICANN’s work through the annual planning cycle, and the need for the development of a framework in collaboration with the community and ICANN org. The Board directs ICANN org to develop a framework of prioritization taking into account community groupings, mechanisms, and processes. The Board directs ICANN org to facilitate efforts to develop a framework toward achieving an agreed-upon definition of what it would mean for the prioritization process to “operate by consensus of the individual SO/ACs, Board, and org members that are participating in the prioritization process.”

ATRT3 is, as of July 2021, in the implementation phase.<ref name="dashboard" /> In a blog post after the Board action in November 2020, [[Maarten Botterman]] wrote that the prioritization process would commence immediately, and noted that wide public participation would be necessary to inform that process, as well as to ensure that the proposed Holistic Review and continuous improvement program pilots were successful.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/board-activity-on-the-third-accountability-and-transparency-review-4-12-2020-en ICANN.org Blog - Board Activity on ATRT3], December 4, 2020</ref>

 

The Implementation Shepherds for ATRT3 are [[Adetola Sogbesan]], [[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]], [[Daniel Nanghaka]], [[Pat Kane]], [[Sebastien Bachollet]], and [[Vanda Scartezini]].<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/atrt/ATRT3+Implementation+Shepherds ATRT3 Workspace - Implementation Shepherds]</ref>

Resolved,...the Board directs the ICANN President and CEO, or his designee, to develop a comprehensive plan for the timing and conduct of the next Organizational Review cycle, taking into consideration the timing of the implementation of the ATRT3 recommendations. This plan should be developed in consultation with the ICANN community, and ICANN org shall provide periodic updates to the Board on progress towards such a plan.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/prelim-report-2021-06-21-en Preliminary Report of Board Meeting], June 21, 2021</ref></blockquote>