First ALAC Organizational Review: Difference between revisions

Line 31:

==Working Group Activity==

The At-Large Review Working Group (ARWG) began work in the months following release of Westlake's final report. In October 2008, the ARWG published a "Mid-Point Consultation Report" for public comment.<ref name="midrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/midpoint-consultation-report-21oct08-en.pdf Mid-Point Consultation Report], October 21, 2008</ref> The goal of the report was to generate discussion, feedback and talking points in the lead-up to [[ICANN 33]] in Cairo.<ref name="midrep" /> Notably, the report suggested that the ALAC should have two voting chairs on the ICANN Board, as compared to the Westlake report's recommendation that the organization's participation at the board level remain that of a liaison.<ref name="midrep" />

The At-Large Review Working Group (ARWG) began work in the months following release of Westlake's final report. In October 2008, the ARWG published a "Mid-Point Consultation Report" for public comment.<ref name="midrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/midpoint-consultation-report-21oct08-en.pdf Mid-Point Consultation Report], October 21, 2008</ref> The goal of the report was to generate discussion, feedback and talking points in the lead-up to [[ICANN 33]] in Cairo.<ref name="midrep" /> Notably, the report suggested that the ALAC should have two voting chairs on the ICANN Board, as compared to the Westlake report's recommendation that the organization's participation at the board level remain that of a liaison.<ref name="midrep" /> Public comments on the mid-point report ranged from dismissive of any effort to reform ALAC to strongly supportive of the recommendations in the report.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/ ICANN.org Listserv Archive - At-Large1 Mid-Point Report Comments]</ref> The ICANN 33 session on the review focused primarily on the topics of board seats and properly resourcing ALAC's activities. There was also discussion of how regional and ALS actions, advice, and comments get funneled through ALAC to ICANN.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/cairo2008/files/meetings/cairo2008/workshop-atlarge-review-05nov08.txt ICANN.org Archive - At-Large Review Transcript], ICANN 33 (Cairo), 2008</ref>

Following the public comment period and feedback sessions, the working group produced its draft report for public comment in January 2009.<ref name="dashboard" /> The draft report maintained the call for two ALAC-appointed voting seats on the ICANN board.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/reviews/alac/final-report-alac-review-28jan09-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - Draft Final Report, At-Large1 Working Group], January 28, 2009</ref> Public comment was largely supportive of the findings and recommendations in the report. The proposal of board representation was supported by the majority of commenters, with some dissent.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-review/pdfEB4HXCtVLG.pdf ICANN.org - Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding], May 2009</ref>

==Final Report and Implementation==

The working group's final report was submitted to the ICANN Board in June 2009.<ref name="dashboard" /> The board acknowledged receipt of the report at the end of June and directed ICANN staff to begin work on an implementation plan for recommendations that could be implemented without further review. The question of board seats was deferred pending board discussions on the appropriate number and composition of both the board and the [[Nominating Committee]].<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2009-06-26-en?routing_type=path#12 Resolution of the Board], June 26, 2009</ref> A year later, in June 2010, an implemenation plan was submitted to the Board, with the question of board seats still in limbo.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/2950348/ALAC-At-Large+Improvements+Implementation+Project+Plan+%287+June+2010%29.pdf ICANN.org - At-Large1 Implementation Project Plan], June 7, 2010</ref> The board requested a summary of the plan at its next regular meeting.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-06-25-en#1.8 Resolution of the Board], June 25, 2010</ref> The board approved the implementation plan in August 2010.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-08-05-en?routing_type=path#2.h Resolution of the Board], August 5, 2010</ref>

The final report of ALAC's implementation project team was delivered in June 2012, with all recommendations marked as 100% complete. This included the creation of one board seat (seat 15) appointed by the ALAC.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/34603644/ALAC%20At-Large%20Improvements%20Implementation%20Project%20-%20Final%20Report%2014%20June%202012.pdf At-Large1 Implementation Project Final Report], June 20, 2012</ref>

==References==

__NOTOC__

[[Category: ICANN Reviews]]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 ==Working Group Activity==
-The At-Large Review Working Group (ARWG) began work in the months following release of Westlake's final report. In October 2008, the ARWG published a "Mid-Point Consultation Report" for public comment.<ref name="midrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/midpoint-consultation-report-21oct08-en.pdf Mid-Point Consultation Report], October 21, 2008</ref> The goal of the report was to generate discussion, feedback and talking points in the lead-up to [[ICANN 33]] in Cairo.<ref name="midrep" /> Notably, the report suggested that the ALAC should have two voting chairs on the ICANN Board, as compared to the Westlake report's recommendation that the organization's participation at the board level remain that of a liaison.<ref name="midrep" />
+The At-Large Review Working Group (ARWG) began work in the months following release of Westlake's final report. In October 2008, the ARWG published a "Mid-Point Consultation Report" for public comment.<ref name="midrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/midpoint-consultation-report-21oct08-en.pdf Mid-Point Consultation Report], October 21, 2008</ref> The goal of the report was to generate discussion, feedback and talking points in the lead-up to [[ICANN 33]] in Cairo.<ref name="midrep" /> Notably, the report suggested that the ALAC should have two voting chairs on the ICANN Board, as compared to the Westlake report's recommendation that the organization's participation at the board level remain that of a liaison.<ref name="midrep" /> Public comments on the mid-point report ranged from dismissive of any effort to reform ALAC to strongly supportive of the recommendations in the report.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/ ICANN.org Listserv Archive - At-Large1 Mid-Point Report Comments]</ref> The ICANN 33 session on the review focused primarily on the topics of board seats and properly resourcing ALAC's activities. There was also discussion of how regional and ALS actions, advice, and comments get funneled through ALAC to ICANN.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/cairo2008/files/meetings/cairo2008/workshop-atlarge-review-05nov08.txt ICANN.org Archive - At-Large Review Transcript], ICANN 33 (Cairo), 2008</ref>
+Following the public comment period and feedback sessions, the working group produced its draft report for public comment in January 2009.<ref name="dashboard" /> The draft report maintained the call for two ALAC-appointed voting seats on the ICANN board.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/reviews/alac/final-report-alac-review-28jan09-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - Draft Final Report, At-Large1 Working Group], January 28, 2009</ref> Public comment was largely supportive of the findings and recommendations in the report. The proposal of board representation was supported by the majority of commenters, with some dissent.<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-review/pdfEB4HXCtVLG.pdf ICANN.org - Staff Report on Public Comment Proceeding], May 2009</ref>
+==Final Report and Implementation==
+The working group's final report was submitted to the ICANN Board in June 2009.<ref name="dashboard" /> The board acknowledged receipt of the report at the end of June and directed ICANN staff to begin work on an implementation plan for recommendations that could be implemented without further review. The question of board seats was deferred pending board discussions on the appropriate number and composition of both the board and the [[Nominating Committee]].<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2009-06-26-en?routing_type=path#12 Resolution of the Board], June 26, 2009</ref> A year later, in June 2010, an implemenation plan was submitted to the Board, with the question of board seats still in limbo.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/2950348/ALAC-At-Large+Improvements+Implementation+Project+Plan+%287+June+2010%29.pdf ICANN.org - At-Large1 Implementation Project Plan], June 7, 2010</ref> The board requested a summary of the plan at its next regular meeting.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-06-25-en#1.8 Resolution of the Board], June 25, 2010</ref> The board approved the implementation plan in August 2010.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-08-05-en?routing_type=path#2.h Resolution of the Board], August 5, 2010</ref>
+The final report of ALAC's implementation project team was delivered in June 2012, with all recommendations marked as 100% complete. This included the creation of one board seat (seat 15) appointed by the ALAC.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/34603644/ALAC%20At-Large%20Improvements%20Implementation%20Project%20-%20Final%20Report%2014%20June%202012.pdf At-Large1 Implementation Project Final Report], June 20, 2012</ref>
 ==References==
 {{reflist}}
 __NOTOC__
+[[Category: ICANN Reviews]]