Jump to content

Operating Standards for Specific Reviews: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
← 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 23: Line 23:
There were limited comments in the session itself, with Hoffman suggesting that attendees might need to take some time to fully read and absorb the contents of the skeleton draft.<ref>[https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann572016/37/I57%20HYD_Sat05Nov2016-Op%20Standards%20Workshop%20to%20Socialize%20with%20Community-en.pdf ICANN 57 Archive - Transcript, Operating Standards Workshop], November 5, 2016</ref> Feedback from the session included a recommendation to generate a more substantive draft compiling best practices already in place (for example, within the GNSO's guidelines for policy development processes). The particulars of specific reviews - notably, the nomination and selection of review team members from the SOs and ACs - could then be developed and refined against that backdrop.<ref name="feb21v1">[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64070188/Operating_Standards_WEBINAR__21FEB17__1500_UTC.pdf OSFR Workspace - Transcript of First Webinar], February 21, 2017</ref>
There were limited comments in the session itself, with Hoffman suggesting that attendees might need to take some time to fully read and absorb the contents of the skeleton draft.<ref>[https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann572016/37/I57%20HYD_Sat05Nov2016-Op%20Standards%20Workshop%20to%20Socialize%20with%20Community-en.pdf ICANN 57 Archive - Transcript, Operating Standards Workshop], November 5, 2016</ref> Feedback from the session included a recommendation to generate a more substantive draft compiling best practices already in place (for example, within the GNSO's guidelines for policy development processes). The particulars of specific reviews - notably, the nomination and selection of review team members from the SOs and ACs - could then be developed and refined against that backdrop.<ref name="feb21v1">[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64070188/Operating_Standards_WEBINAR__21FEB17__1500_UTC.pdf OSFR Workspace - Transcript of First Webinar], February 21, 2017</ref>


The [[MSSI]] hosted two webinars on February 21, 2017, to update the community on recent developments in the OSFR project and discuss next steps.<ref name="feb21hub">[https://community.icann.org/display/OSFR/21+February+2017 OSFR Workspace - February 21, 2017 Webinar Archive], last updated September 1, 2017</ref>  
The [[MSSI]] hosted two webinars on February 21, 2017, to update the community on recent developments in the OSFR project and discuss next steps.<ref name="feb21hub">[https://community.icann.org/display/OSFR/21+February+2017 OSFR Workspace - February 21, 2017 Webinar Archive], last updated September 1, 2017</ref> As proposed, the MSSI team had created a draft with content folded in from various sources regarding current best practices around reviews. Because of a number of novel issues raised by the new language in Article 4.6, there were still many open questions regarding specific reviews.<ref name="feb21v1" /> At the first webinar, [[Katrina Sataki]] expressed concern that the draft document to date did not include more content around standards for specific reviews: first, because the only provision in the Bylaws around operating standards was specifically housed in Article 4.6; and second, because the SSR2 and ATRT3 reviews were due to kick off in a short period of time, and it seemed unlikely that the operating standards would not be in place before then.<ref name="feb21v1" ?> Hoffman and [[Larisa Gurnick]] acknowledged the concerns, but noted that because Article 4.6 specifically required a consultative process, there was no way for staff to expedite the creation of the operating standards, and that it would be inappropriate for staff to tell the SOs and ACs what the policy should be.<ref name="feb21v1" />
 
===ICANN 58===
Following the February webinars, MSSI held a session on review operating standards at [[ICANN 58]] in Copenhagen.<ref name="icann58">[https://icann58copenhagen2017.sched.com/event/9nn7/icann-review-operating-standards-next-steps ICANN 58 Archive - ICANN Review Operating Standards: Next Steps], March 13, 2017</ref> The session was much shorter than its scheduled time, consisting largely of the presentation of material that echoed the themes of the February webinars. There was only one question, from [[Lito Ibarra]], regarding if or how the operating standards would discuss the scope of each of the specific reviews. Hoffman responded that Article 4.6 had provisions defining the scope of each of the specific reviews, so that the operating standards would likely not address that detail, and instead focus on processes where all reviews could benefit from a standard approach.<ref>[https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/34/I58CPH_Mon13Mar2017-ICANN%20Review%20Operating%20Standards-Next%20Steps-en.pdf ICANN 58 Archive - Transcript, ICANN Review Operating Standards], March 13, 2017</ref>
 
==References==
{{reflist}}
 
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__
[[Category:Specific Reviews]]
[[Category:Specific Reviews]]

Revision as of 00:47, 13 July 2021

The Operating Standards for Specific Reviews were produced by ICANN org through public consultation between 2016 and 2019.[1] The ICANN Board approved the final version of the operating standards in June 2019[2]

Background[edit | edit source]

Specific Reviews were introduced as a result of the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) between ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce. The "specific commitments" of the AoC each became the subject of a review:

  • Accountability and Transparency (ATRT) - focused on ICANN operations[3]
  • Security, Stability, & Resiliency (SSR) - focused on the DNS[4]
  • Registration Directory Service (RDS/WHOIS) - focused on registration data and public access to registration information[5]
  • Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice (CCT) - ushered in as part of the New gTLD Program, this review is focused on the domain marketplace and the experience of registrants and other consumers[6]

In October 2016, the ICANN Board approved an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws that codified Specific Reviews in Article 4.6.[7] Article 4.6 requires that the operating standards for specific reviews "shall be developed through community consultation, including public comment opportunities as necessary that comply with the designated practice for public comment periods within ICANN."[7] It also provides some foundational guidelines for the review process, selection of SO/AC representatives, diversity and representation of all interests, and other baseline operating standards.[7] The Operating Standards for Reviews (OSFR) project was launched by ICANN org shortly after the addition of Article 4.6 to the Bylaws.[1]

Community Consultation and Drafting Process[edit | edit source]

ICANN 57[edit | edit source]

Lars Hoffman hosted an open session at ICANN 57 in Hyderabad to "...contin[ue]...a dialogue that started during the drafting of the new Bylaws."[8] His presentation included a skeleton draft of an operating standards document.[9] The draft proposed a number of questions for the workshop to consider:

  • How should the SO/AC Chairs’ selection process work in detail, to assure efficient proceedings, while adhering to all Bylaw requirements?
  • How to assure diversity in Review Teams?
  • How to integrate newcomers into reviews?
  • How to assure that subparts of SO/ACs (AT-Large regions, GNSO SG/Cs, etc.) are all adequately represented across different reviews?
  • How do we ensure institutional experience between different reviews whilst assuring to recruit new members to future Review Teams?
  • How to include non-affiliated subject matter experts in the selection process for Review Teams?
  • Who should be allowed to propose changes to the operating procedures once they are in place?
  • What procedure should be in place to amend the operating procedures once they are in place?

There were limited comments in the session itself, with Hoffman suggesting that attendees might need to take some time to fully read and absorb the contents of the skeleton draft.[10] Feedback from the session included a recommendation to generate a more substantive draft compiling best practices already in place (for example, within the GNSO's guidelines for policy development processes). The particulars of specific reviews - notably, the nomination and selection of review team members from the SOs and ACs - could then be developed and refined against that backdrop.[11]

The MSSI hosted two webinars on February 21, 2017, to update the community on recent developments in the OSFR project and discuss next steps.[12] As proposed, the MSSI team had created a draft with content folded in from various sources regarding current best practices around reviews. Because of a number of novel issues raised by the new language in Article 4.6, there were still many open questions regarding specific reviews.[11] At the first webinar, Katrina Sataki expressed concern that the draft document to date did not include more content around standards for specific reviews: first, because the only provision in the Bylaws around operating standards was specifically housed in Article 4.6; and second, because the SSR2 and ATRT3 reviews were due to kick off in a short period of time, and it seemed unlikely that the operating standards would not be in place before then.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag The session was much shorter than its scheduled time, consisting largely of the presentation of material that echoed the themes of the February webinars. There was only one question, from Lito Ibarra, regarding if or how the operating standards would discuss the scope of each of the specific reviews. Hoffman responded that Article 4.6 had provisions defining the scope of each of the specific reviews, so that the operating standards would likely not address that detail, and instead focus on processes where all reviews could benefit from a standard approach.[13]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Operating Standards for Reviews Workspace
  2. ↑ Operating Standards for Specific Reviews, June 23, 2019
  3. ↑ ICANN.org - Accountability & Transparency Review
  4. ↑ ICANN.org - Security, Stability, & Resiliency Review
  5. ↑ ICANN.org - Registration Directory Service Review
  6. ↑ ICANN.org - Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 ICANN Bylaws - Article 4, Section 4.6 - Specific Reviews, as amended July 2021
  8. ↑ ICANN 57 Archive - Operating Standards Workshop to Socialize with the Community, November 5, 2016
  9. ↑ Operating Standards for Reviews Workspace - Operating Standards Skeleton, October 27, 2016
  10. ↑ ICANN 57 Archive - Transcript, Operating Standards Workshop, November 5, 2016
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 OSFR Workspace - Transcript of First Webinar, February 21, 2017
  12. ↑ OSFR Workspace - February 21, 2017 Webinar Archive, last updated September 1, 2017
  13. ↑ ICANN 58 Archive - Transcript, ICANN Review Operating Standards, March 13, 2017

References[edit | edit source]

Generic Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities set forth in the Bylaws (ICANN Bylaws).

Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=Operating_Standards_for_Specific_Reviews&oldid=1327048"