icannwiki

Third Accountability and Transparency Review: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
JP (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
3,197 edits
No edit summary
JP (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
3,197 edits
Line 157: Line 157:
!  
!  
|-
|-
| 'Public Comment'': 1.1 Plain language summaries, key questions, translation of same;1.2 Explore alternate methods of receiving feedback and systematize the use of such methods; publish an updated public comment guidelines document
| ''Public Comment'': 1.1 Plain language summaries, key questions, translation of same; 1.2 Explore alternate methods of receiving feedback and systematize the use of such methods; publish an updated public comment guidelines document
| ICANN organization plans to launch certain features of its Information Transparency Initiative (ITI) by the start of Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, i.e. by July 1 2021. ICANN org’s Public Comment and ITI teams will provide training to all appropriate ICANN org functions to ensure readiness for the launch of the new Public Comment feature and to stress the importance of all guidelines on public comments.
| ICANN organization plans to launch certain features of its Information Transparency Initiative (ITI) by the start of Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, i.e. by July 1 2021. ICANN org’s Public Comment and ITI teams will provide training to all appropriate ICANN org functions to ensure readiness for the launch of the new Public Comment feature and to stress the importance of all guidelines on public comments.
| Costs are already assumed in the operating budgets for ITI and Public Comment staff. Any additional costs to be assessed before including in a resourcing plan.
| Costs are already assumed in the operating budgets for ITI and Public Comment staff. Any additional costs to be assessed before including in a resourcing plan.
Line 164: Line 164:
|  
|  
|-
|-
| 'ATRT2 Implementation'':
| ''ATRT2 Implementation'':
| Further work and coordination are necessary between ICANN org and the ATRT3 Implementation Shepherds to understand more clearly what can be done to consider the ATRT2 recommendations fully implemented.
| Further work and coordination are necessary between ICANN org and the ATRT3 Implementation Shepherds to understand more clearly what can be done to consider the ATRT2 recommendations fully implemented.
| An understanding of the full scope of the implementation steps is needed, in order to estimate anticipated resources/costs.
| An understanding of the full scope of the implementation steps is needed, in order to estimate anticipated resources/costs.
Line 171: Line 171:
|  
|  
|-
|-
| 'Specific Reviews'': 3.1 Suspend any further RDS Reviews until the next ATRT Review can consider the future of RDS Reviews in light of the final EPDP report recommendations, the results of the Board’s consideration of these, as well as any other developments which affect Directory Services3.2 One additional CCT Review after the next round of new gTLD applications3.3 Suspend any further SSR Reviews until the next ATRT Review (or similar), which shall decide whether to terminate, amend, or maintain SSR Reviews as-is3.4 Continue ATRT Reviews with recommended improvements3.5
| ''Specific Reviews'': 3.1 Suspend any further RDS Reviews until the next ATRT Review can consider the future of RDS Reviews in light of the final EPDP report recommendations, the results of the Board’s consideration of these, as well as any other developments which affect Directory Services3.2 One additional CCT Review after the next round of new gTLD applications3.3 Suspend any further SSR Reviews until the next ATRT Review (or similar), which shall decide whether to terminate, amend, or maintain SSR Reviews as-is3.4 Continue ATRT Reviews with recommended improvements3.5
| These recommendations require amendments to the ICANN Bylaws, which requires 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
| These recommendations require amendments to the ICANN Bylaws, which requires 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
| Conducting a CCT Review: $2.2MM
| Conducting a CCT Review: $2.2MM
Line 178: Line 178:
|  
|  
|-
|-
| 'Holistic Review''3.5 Create a "Holistic Review"" in accordance with ATRT3 recommendations and existing ICANN guidelines for specific reviews"
| ''Holistic Review''3.5 Create a "Holistic Review"" in accordance with ATRT3 recommendations and existing ICANN guidelines for specific reviews"
| As above, this will require amendments to the ICANN Bylaws, and thus requires broad community support for those amendments. ICANN Board also requires more information regarding specifics, including resourcing needs. However, the Holistic Review could be run as a pilot program, alleviating the need to amend the Bylaws, and also providing some practical experience regarding best practices, resources required, and pitfalls to avoid. Any pilot would still need widespread buy-in from the ICANN community. The Holistic Review concept has multiple potential dependencies and cross-over with other ICANN projects, including Work Stream 2, Board efforts to streamline the review process, and other recommendations from the ATRT3 team. Objective criteria will also need to be developed regarding the usefulness of this review process and whether to continue this or any other review.
| As above, this will require amendments to the ICANN Bylaws, and thus requires broad community support for those amendments. ICANN Board also requires more information regarding specifics, including resourcing needs. However, the Holistic Review could be run as a pilot program, alleviating the need to amend the Bylaws, and also providing some practical experience regarding best practices, resources required, and pitfalls to avoid. Any pilot would still need widespread buy-in from the ICANN community. The Holistic Review concept has multiple potential dependencies and cross-over with other ICANN projects, including Work Stream 2, Board efforts to streamline the review process, and other recommendations from the ATRT3 team. Objective criteria will also need to be developed regarding the usefulness of this review process and whether to continue this or any other review.
| Many specifics need to be nailed down to understand potential costs as well as resource support.
| Many specifics need to be nailed down to understand potential costs as well as resource support.
Line 185: Line 185:
|  
|  
|-
|-
| 'Organizational Reviews''3.6 Evolve the content of Organizational Reviews into continuous improvement programs in each SO/AC/NC
| ''Organizational Reviews''3.6 Evolve the content of Organizational Reviews into continuous improvement programs in each SO/AC/NC
| Similar to Holistic Review: Bylaws amendment required, but a pilot Continuous Improvement Program could be run without amendment to Bylaws. The pilot would still require broad community buy-in. Also, pursuant to ATRT3's recommendation that org reviews be suspended, GNSO3's start date is an issue to be resolved.
| Similar to Holistic Review: Bylaws amendment required, but a pilot Continuous Improvement Program could be run without amendment to Bylaws. The pilot would still require broad community buy-in. Also, pursuant to ATRT3's recommendation that org reviews be suspended, GNSO3's start date is an issue to be resolved.
| 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). Estimated cost of supporting Continuous Improvement Programs’ annual review: $35,000-50,000 per year per structure (provided they elect to hire independent examiners).
| 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). Estimated cost of supporting Continuous Improvement Programs’ annual review: $35,000-50,000 per year per structure (provided they elect to hire independent examiners).
Line 192: Line 192:
|  
|  
|-
|-
| 'Transparency and Accountability''4.1 Plain language description of how each goal, outcome, or operating initiative meets the objectives of a stated goal in the strategic plan;4.2 Plain language definitions of success & evaluation criteria for strategic or operational plans and goals;4.3 "Retrofit"" the 2021-2025 strategic plan and 2021 operating plan with a supplement that employs the processes of Recommendations 4.1 and 4.2 to establish clear goals
| ''Transparency and Accountability''4.1 Plain language description of how each goal, outcome, or operating initiative meets the objectives of a stated goal in the strategic plan; 4.2 Plain language definitions of success & evaluation criteria for strategic or operational plans and goals; 4.3 "Retrofit"" the 2021-2025 strategic plan and 2021 operating plan with a supplement that employs the processes of Recommendations 4.1 and 4.2 to establish clear goals, objectives, and criteria for success; 4.4 Annual strategic objectives report; 4.5 Over-arching strategy and objectives report for each five-year strategic plan, including 2016-2020
| objectives
|
| and criteria for success;
|
|
|
|-
| 4.4 Annual strategic objectives report;
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| 4.5 Over-arching strategy and objectives report for each five-year strategic plan
| including 2016-2020"
|  
| 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.
| 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.
| Recommendation timelines may be unreasonable given additional costs and the scope of work involved, particularly in Recommendation 4.3. ICANN already does a lot of this (hence the existing budget for Recommendations 4.1 and 4.2). Implementation should build on and leverage current reporting methods and approaches.
| Recommendation timelines may be unreasonable given additional costs and the scope of work involved, particularly in Recommendation 4.3. ICANN already does a lot of this (hence the existing budget for Recommendations 4.1 and 4.2). Implementation should build on and leverage current reporting methods and approaches.
| The Board approves the 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.
| The Board approves the 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.
|-
|-
| 'Prioritization''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.
| ''Prioritization'' 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.
| 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 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.
| 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 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).
| 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).
Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/Third_Accountability_and_Transparency_Review"